Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00456/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00456-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

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

1

The proposed surreply is attached as Exhibit A to the administrative motion.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re SILICON IMAGE, INC. SECURITIES

LITIGATION

 /

No. C-05-456 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE SURREPLY

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ administrative motion, filed January 4, 2007, for leave

to a file a surreply to defendants’ reply in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss the Third

Consolidated Amended Complaint (“SCAC”). Defendants have filed opposition. Having

reviewed the administrative motion and opposition thereto, the Court rules as follows.

Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to file a surreply to address issues defendants have

raised for the first time in defendants’ reply. The Court finds the sections identified in

plaintiffs’ proposed surreply1

 as “D” and “E” are responses to legal arguments made for the

first time in defendants’ reply, and, consequently, the Court will afford plaintiffs leave to file

a surreply that includes those two sections. As to the other sections in the proposed

surreply, specifically, “A,” “B,” and “C,” the Court finds the points made therein are not

responsive to arguments made for the first time in defendants’ reply, and, consequently,

plaintiffs are not entitled to file a surreply containing such sections.

Case 3:05-cv-00456-MMC Document 80 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ administrative motion is hereby GRANTED to the extent

plaintiffs seek to file a surreply that includes the sections denominated as “D” and “E” in

their proposed surreply, along with an appropriate introduction. Such surreply shall be filed

no later than January 16, 2007. In all other respects, the motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00456-MMC Document 80 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 2