Rojas v. Bosch Solar Energy Corporation

Background

The plaintiffs had filed a reply supporting their motion for class certification. The defendant objected to evidence submitted with that reply and alternatively requested permission to file a sur-reply, meaning an additional filing responding to the reply. The plaintiffs separately filed an administrative motion seeking permission to respond to the defendant’s objection.

Disputed Evidence

The defendant challenged three groups of materials: (1) an affidavit from Todd B. Hilsee, whom the opinion describes as the plaintiffs’ notice expert; (2) specified paragraphs and exhibits from a supplemental declaration by David M. Birka-White; and (3) a declaration by Michael V. Garcia.

The defendant argued that Hilsee had not previously been disclosed as an expert in the case and was offering a new expert opinion for the first time on reply. The defendant also argued that the Birka-White and Garcia materials contained new factual information about damages and were not mentioned in the plaintiffs’ reply brief when the objection was filed. The plaintiffs later filed a corrected reply adding references to those declarations.

Court’s Analysis

The court relied on the principle that introducing new material at the last stage of briefing can unfairly disadvantage the opposing party. It found that considering the plaintiffs’ reply evidence would be unfair and prejudicial to the defendant.

The court considered allowing the evidence while giving the defendant permission to file a sur-reply. It rejected that option because the defendant would need enough additional time to depose Hilsee and obtain a rebuttal expert. Continuing the class-certification hearing for that purpose would disrupt the case schedule. The court also noted that the parties had previously received multiple extensions and that the case’s age and trial scheduling made further significant delay unreasonable.

Disposition

The court sustained the defendant’s objection to the plaintiffs’ reply evidence in its entirety. It denied as moot the defendant’s alternative request for permission to file a sur-reply. It denied the plaintiffs’ administrative motion for permission to respond to the objection. Judge Beth Labson Freeman’s order addressed the evidentiary and filing issues; the opinion text does not state a ruling on the underlying class-certification motion.