Rusoff v. The Happy Group, Inc.
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:21-cv-08084
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Rusoff v. The Happy Group, Judge Martinez-Olguin required proper filings on disputed class-certification evidence and vacated the hearing.
Jonathan Rusoff, The Happy Group, Inc., and the pending motion for class certification.
What happened
In Rusoff v. The Happy Group, The Happy Group objected to evidence Jonathan Rusoff submitted with his reply supporting class certification. It asked the court to strike the evidence or allow a later reply.
Rusoff argued that the disputed documents were publicly available and that he did not have to produce documents equally available to The Happy Group. He also argued that The Happy Group had not properly filed its request to strike as a motion.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin did not consider the substance of the filings beyond giving procedural guidance. She directed The Happy Group to file any request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) as a properly noticed motion, required the parties to meet and confer first, and vacated the August 31, 2023 hearing on class certification.
The detailed version
- Rusoff v. The Happy Group, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-08084
- Martinez-Olguin
- Aug. 25, 2023
Background
The Happy Group filed objections to new evidence that Jonathan Rusoff submitted for the first time with his reply in support of his motion for class certification. The Happy Group asked the court to strike the evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c), which concerns certain evidence that was not properly disclosed, or alternatively to allow it to file a sur-reply. Its filing included a proposed sur-reply, a response to new material by Joy Mench, D. Phil, and exhibits.
Rusoff responded that the disputed documents were publicly available and that there was no obligation to produce documents equally available to the opposing party. He also argued that The Happy Group's request to strike was not filed as a properly noticed Rule 37 motion.
Court's Analysis
The court stated that, apart from objections to reply evidence, the parties' additional filings were not properly before it. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), parties generally may not file additional memoranda, papers, or letters after a reply without prior court approval, except for a statement of recent decision or an objection to reply evidence. The court explained that an administrative motion under Local Rule 7-11 is an appropriate way to seek that approval, but neither party had filed one.
Because of that filing problem, the court did not consider the substance of the noncompliant filings beyond the guidance provided in the order. The court stated that, to the extent The Happy Group sought relief under Rule 37(c), it had to file a properly noticed motion complying with Civil Local Rule 7-2. Before filing, the parties had to meet and confer in good faith under the District Guidelines for Professional Conduct. If they reached a resolution, such as allowing the proposed sur-reply and a response, they could submit a stipulation and proposed order.
Disposition
The court did not rule on whether the disputed evidence should be struck or whether The Happy Group should be allowed to file a sur-reply. It directed the parties to follow the required procedures and vacated the hearing on the motion for class certification, which had been set for August 31, 2023, pending the parties' forthcoming filings.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.