Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02130/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02130-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

RAGHAVAN SATHIANATHAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SMITH BARNEY, INC.,

Defendant. 

No. C 04-2130 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 251]

Before the Court is pro se plaintiff Raghavan Sathianathan’s ex parte motion for leave to file

an overlength brief in support of his renewed Rule 60 motion [Docket No. 251]. The plaintiff requests

leave to file a brief of 14,000 words (the word limitation for state and federal appellate briefs in the State

of California). This may amount, depending on formatting, to well over 50 pages. Defendant Smith

Barney, Inc. opposes this request. For the reasons that follow, the plaintiff’s ex parte motion is

DENIED.

Under Civil Local Rule 7-4(b) “Unless the Court expressly orders otherwise pursuant to a party’s

request made prior to the due date, briefs or memoranda filed with opposition papers may not exceed

25 pages of text and the reply brief or memorandum may not exceed 15 pages of text.” The plaintiff

plans to file a renewed Rule 60 motion for relief from this Court’s February 25, 2005 order. See Docket

No. 92. That order granted the defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award; denied the

plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award; and struck the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an

amended complaint.

The case has a very long history and there has been extensive briefing by both parties. In

addition, the plaintiff has previously briefed his Rule 60 motion. On March 30, 2006, the Court entered

an order stating the following:

As a final matter, the Court would like to advise the parties that it has found the parties’

approach to hand[l]ing this case – which has consisted of filing numerous duplicative

and voluminous briefs – to be improper and decidedly unhelpful. Indeed, the

voluminous and incessant filings have hindered, rather than facilitated, the efficient and

timely resolution of this case. As such, the parties are expressly warned that they must

strictly adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil Local Rules, this

Case 4:04-cv-02130-SBA Document 255 Filed 01/28/08 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 2

Court’s Standing Orders, and the briefing schedule set forth herein.

Docket No. 193, at 3.

Following this, the Court specifically ordered that “Plaintiff’s motion shall not exceed 25

pages.” Id. at 5. Given that the parties have filed numerous and lengthy briefs in the past, the Court

finds that it is unlikely that an enlargement of the page limitation will be helpful. The issues have been

extensively briefed and litigated, and it is unnecessary for the parties to rehash matters already presented

to this Court.

A district court has wide discretion in applying its local rules, and in this instance the Court will

exercise its discretion to enforce the page limitation. See United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474

(9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (“Only in rare cases will we question the exercise of discretion in

connection with the application of local rules”); Lundh v. Terhune, 45 Fed. Appx. 815, 816 (9th Cir.

2002) (unpublished) (no abuse of discretion in enforcing 25 page limit). The motion is therefore

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 28, 2008 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02130-SBA Document 255 Filed 01/28/08 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 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SATHIANATHAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SMITH BARNEY, INC. et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV04-02130 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on January 28, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Raghavan Sathianathan

c/o S. T. Allen & Co.

336 Bloomfield Avenue

Montclair, NJ 07042

Dated: January 28, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:04-cv-02130-SBA Document 255 Filed 01/28/08 Page 3 of 3