Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04333/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04333-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 06-4333 PJH

v. ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO FILE OVERSIZED

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, OPPOSITION

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is the AG plaintiffs’ motion for administrative relief, filed November

20, 2006. The AG plaintiffs seek permission to file an oversized opposition to defendants’

motion to dismiss, of no more than 110 pages. Alternatively, plaintiffs seek to file six

oppositions to the motion to dismiss (which would grant plaintiffs a total of 150 pages). 

Defendants, for their part, have filed no opposition to the motion. Per the local rules – to

which the court directs all parties’ attention – defendants’ opposition to, support for, or

statement of non-opposition, was due by the end of November 27. See Civ. L.R. 7-11; Civ.

L. R. 7-3(b). Notwithstanding the lack of any responsive filing, however, and the November

27 deadline having passed, the court hereby deems plaintiffs’ administrative motion

submitted pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-11(c). 

While the court appreciates that there are nearly 40 AG plaintiffs represented in the

current action, and that some of these plaintiffs’ arguments are not necessarily overlapping,

a 110 page opposition brief is simply too unmanageable for the court to consider, let alone

the 150 page sum total that 6 opposition briefs would allow. The court will, however, grant

plaintiffs permission to file an oversized opposition of no more than 60 pages, in order to

Case 4:06-cv-04333-PJH Document 28 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

accommodate plaintiffs’ need to develop their arguments fully with respect to all

representative states. The court further notes that, at 60 pages, the AG plaintiffs’

opposition would still be more than twice the length of defendants’ opening brief, which

defendants – who bear the burden of proof on this motion – managed to jointly file within

the normal page limitation. 

To the extent that issues exist with respect to the page limitations applicable to

future motions filed by the parties, the court will discuss them at a future case management

conference with the parties. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-04333-PJH Document 28 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 2