Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01696/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01696-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 15-cv-01696-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STRIKE 

TCS’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ COST 

OBJECTIONS 

Re: Dkt. No. 704 

The Court has reviewed the papers submitted by the parties in connection with plaintiffs’ 

administrative motion to strike TCS’s response to plaintiffs’ cost objections. (Dkt. Nos. 705, 706.) 

Unfortunately, the bickering that has infected this litigation persists. 

First, the Court is unpersuaded by TCS’s current argument that it viewed plaintiffs’ 

objections filed January 28, 2019 as “a motion to deny TCS its costs in total” improperly styled as 

an objection. TCS did not so characterize plaintiffs’ objections in its actual response, which is 

now the subject of the instant administrative motion. (Compare Dkt. No. 706 at 1 with Dkt. No. 

703 at 1 (TCS notes therein “[p]ursuant to stipulation, plaintiffs filed an objection on January 28, 

2019” to which “TCS hereby files its response”) (emphasis supplied). The Court will not entertain 

such revisionist explanations for violations of the local rules. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

plaintiffs’ motion and hereby STRIKES TCS’s filing at Docket Number 703. 

Next, the Court agrees with TCS that plaintiffs’ argument that “the Court should exercise 

its discretion to decline to tax costs, as an award of costs would be inequitable” (see Dkt. No. 698 

at 2:18-10:5) is not properly characterized as “specific objections to any item of cost claimed in 

[TCS’s] bill, succinctly setting forth the grounds of each objection.” See L.R. 54-2(a). Moreover, 

plaintiffs’ argument attempts to circumvent the procedure for filing a proper motion for review of 

the clerk’s cost determination. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Therefore, the 

Case 4:15-cv-01696-YGR Document 708 Filed 02/12/19 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Court STRIKES this portion of plaintiffs’ objection as filed in violation of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 54(d)(1) and Local Rule 54-2. To the extent there is an objection to the clerk’s cost 

determination, plaintiffs shall comply with Rule 54(d)(1). 

The Court considered issuing monetary sanctions against both parties for violations of the 

rules but has already spent more than enough time on this squabble. Further rule violations will be 

viewed as intentional and flagrant. Parties are hereby warned. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 704. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

February 12, 2019

Case 4:15-cv-01696-YGR Document 708 Filed 02/12/19 Page 2 of 2