Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NSIGHT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEOPLESOFT, INC,

Defendant /

No. C-04-3836 MMC

ORDER STRIKING MULTIPLE

OPPOSITION MEMORANDA FILED BY

PLAINTIFF; DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

FILE ONE OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

On April 28, 2005, plaintiff filed a nine-page opposition to defendant’s motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). On April 29, 2005, plaintiff, without

explanation, filed a second opposition, consisting of ten pages of argument. On May 4,

2005, plaintiff filed a third opposition, denominated a “supplemental response,” consisting

of another ten pages of argument. Further, plaintiff, in setting forth its response to

defendant’s arguments pertaining to plaintiff’s state law claims, has, in two of the abovereferenced oppositions, incorporated by reference plaintiff’s twelve-page opposition to

defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s original complaint. In sum, plaintiff has requested

the Court consider four documents, totaling approximately 41 pages, as its opposition to

defendant’s motion to dismiss the FAC.

The Local Rules of this District provide that an opposition may not exceed 25 pages

of text. See Civil L.R. 7-3(a). Plaintiff’s reliance on multiple oppositions, totaling 41 pages

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 39 Filed 05/06/05 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

of text, is in violation thereof. Further, although not expressly stated in the Local Rules, it is

generally understood that a single motion gives rise to a single opposition and a single

reply. Finally, apart from the violation of the Local Rules, plaintiff’s reliance on four

separate opposition memoranda is likely to cause unnecessary confusion with respect to

defendant’s identification of and response to plaintiff’s arguments, as well as the Court’s

assessment of the parties’ respective contentions.

Accordingly, the Court hereby STRIKES each of the above-referenced oppositions

to the FAC, without prejudice to plaintiff’s filing one opposition, not to exceed 25 pages in

length, no later than May 13, 2005. See Civil L.R. 7-3(a); Landis v. North American Co.,

299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (observing district courts have “power inherent . . . to control the

disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for

counsel, and for litigants”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2005 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 39 Filed 05/06/05 Page 2 of 2