Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02053/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02053-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY M. LINDELL, ON BEHALF OF 

HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY 

SITUATED,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SYNTHES USA, SYNTHES USA SALES 

LLC, SYNTHES SPINE COMPANY, LP,

Defendants.

Case No.: No. 11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ 

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (DOC. 102) 

MODIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON 

CLASS CERTIFICATION

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ request for an order, nunc pro tunc, allowing 

Defendants to file an overlength opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class certification. (Doc. 

108.) Defendants filed a 44-page opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification on 

October 29, 2013, and filed the instant request shortly thereafter. (Doc. 102, 106.) Plaintiff filed 

an opposition to Defendants’ request to file an overlength opposition on October 30, 2013. 

Defendants acknowledge their filing of an overlength brief was procedurally improper as 

leave of Court was required to file a brief exceeding twenty-five pages. (Doc. 106.) 

Nonetheless, Defendants request an order granting leave to file an overlength brief, nunc pro 

tunc, due to the complexity of the issues and the rigorous analysis required at the class 

certification stage. 

Plaintiff responds that, in addition to failing to comply with the Court’s requirement to 

seek leave before filing an overlength brief, Defendants have not shown good cause to justify a 

need for excess pages. Specifically, Plaintiff argues a “20-page factual background” is 

Case 1:11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM Document 111 Filed 10/31/13 Page 1 of 3
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

unnecessary in light of the legal and factual issues implicated by Plaintiff’s Motion and unduly 

burdens the Court. Plaintiff also argues he would be prejudiced by having to respond to a 44-

page brief with a 10-page reply. 

As the parties are aware, “Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest 

caseload in the nation . . . .” Aguilar v. Gen. Motors, LLC, No. 1:13-CV-00437-LJO-GSA, 2013 

WL 3872502, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 25, 2013). This Court is unable to devote inordinate time and

limited resources to individual cases and matters. Nor can the Court address every argument and 

matter raised by a party. Rather, the Court addresses only the arguments, evidence and matters 

necessary to reach a decision. Accordingly, the Court expects the parties to present a distilled, 

succinct presentation of the facts and law necessary to reach a decision. 

Due in no small part to this Court’s overburdened docket, unless leave of Court is 

obtained in advance, moving and opposition briefs or legal memorandum in civil cases are 

limited to twenty-five pages. (Standing Order of Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe ¶8.) 

Defendants failed to comply with this Court’s page limitations or timely seek leave to file an

overlength opposition. 

Moreover, Defendants have not articulated good cause to obtain relief from this 

limitation. Defendants’ general and unsupported assertion that this case is complex is not 

persuasive. Having briefly reviewed the parties’ papers, the relevant factual and legal issues can 

be articulated within the standard page limitations. The rigorous analysis required under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 23 does not justify an overlength brief, as this Court routinely decides complex motions 

for class certification which are briefed within the standard page limitations. Nonetheless, the 

Court will grant a small expansion of the length of the brief.

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendants’ Request to file an overlength brief (Doc. 106, 108) is DENIED;

2. Defendants’ Opposition TO Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 102) 

is STRICKEN;

3. Defendants’ Request to Seal Documents (Doc. 104) is DENIED as moot. 

Case 1:11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM Document 111 Filed 10/31/13 Page 2 of 3
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

Concerning the briefing and hearing schedule on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class 

Certification, the Court FURTHER ORDERS the following:

1. Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification shall be filed 

on or before November 5, 2013. Defendants’ Opposition shall not exceed thirty (30) pages. 

2. Plaintiff’s Reply shall be filed on or before November 25, 2013. Plaintiff’s Reply 

shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages. 

3. The December 20, 2013 hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification is

VACATED and CONTINUED to January 17, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 8, before United 

States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. 

Failure to strictly comply with the terms of this Order will result in the imposition of 

sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM Document 111 Filed 10/31/13 Page 3 of 3