Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01082/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01082-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL 

SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware 

corporation; and Does 1 through 10, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING 

AND COMPELLING 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON 

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Defendant Ford Motor Co.’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment. (Doc. No. 122.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion, (Doc. No. 141), to 

which Ford replied, (Doc. No. 154). The hearing is currently set for August 15, 2024 at 

2:00 p.m. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds supplemental briefing is required 

to fairly adjudicate Ford’s pending motion. Accordingly, the Hearing on Motion for 

Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 122), Motion for Class Certification, (Doc. No. 120), and 

the Motions to Exclude Expert Opinions, (Doc. Nos. 137, 139, 150, 151, and 152), is 

CONTINUED to Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 2:00 p.m.

///

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 182 Filed 08/09/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 1 of 2
2

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

The Court finds Plaintiffs have inadequately met their burden in opposing Ford’s 

motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs assert the details of the alleged Suspension 

Defect are “described in detail in Plaintiffs’ pending class certification motion” and 

thereafter fail to support many of their assertions with any citation to the evidentiary record.

Moreover, several of the citations that Plaintiffs do offer span multiple exhibits without 

directing the Court to the specific pages they rely upon. Indeed, it bears repeating the 

familiar maxim: “judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” Indep. 

Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003). “Nor are they 

archaeologists searching for treasure. Put simply, the Court is not obligated to paw over 

files in order to make a party’s claim.” Krause v. Nev. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:12-CV-00342-

JCM, 2014 WL 99178, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2014).

Thus, the Court finds supplemental briefing is necessary to fairly adjudicate this 

motion. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file a revised opposition brief 

setting forth specific exhibits, with citations to specific pages, that support their position

no later than August 23, 2024. Further failure may result in granting of the motion for 

summary judgment.

Ford is further afforded an opportunity to revise its reply brief, and the Court 

ORDERS the reply brief be filed no later than August 30, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2024

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 182 Filed 08/09/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 2 of 2