Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02665/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02665-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 29:633 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TATYANA EVGENIEVNA 

DREVALEVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, United States Secretary 

of Veteran’s Affairs,

Defendants.

No. C 19-02665 WHA 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE FOR 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

INTRODUCTION

The Court is in receipt of pro se plaintiff’s letter (Dkt. No. 55) explaining her cause for 

belief that she is entitled to file several supplemental briefs (Dkt. Nos. 48, 50, 52) in support of 

her Rule 60 motion to vacate an order dismissing her case (Dkt. No. 38). Though plaintiff is 

mistaken, her mistake was reasonable. Leave to file these briefs is retroactively GRANTED.

STATEMENT

This is the third of several lawsuits plaintiff has brought against the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs. The facts are set out in prior orders (Dkt. No. 38). Following dismissal of plaintiff’s 

case for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (ibid.), plaintiff filed 

a Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment (Dkt. No. 44). Plaintiff also requested leave to file a 

supplemental brief (Dkt. No. 42). 

Case 3:19-cv-02665-WHA Document 59 Filed 01/02/20 Page 1 of 3
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 California

Following the secretary’s opposition (Dkt. No. 47), plaintiff filed three supplemental 

briefs on December 7 (Dkt. No. 48), December 11 (Dkt. No. 50), and December 12 (Dkt. No. 

52). On December 12, plaintiff also filed her reply (Dkt. No. 53). A December 20 order (Dkt. 

No. 54) noted plaintiff failed to show cause for the necessity of supplemental briefing. The 

next day, plaintiff objected (Dkt. No. 55).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff points to Civ. L.R. 7-3(c) in support of her three supplemental briefs: “[a]ny 

reply to an opposition may include affidavits or declarations, as well as a supplemental brief or 

memorandum under Civil L.R. 7-4.” Moreover, because Civ. L.R. 7-3(c) does not require 

leave of the Court, plaintiff’s three supplemental briefs, filed before and in support of her reply 

are proper. 

Plaintiff is incorrect. The Civil Local Rules provide for three-part motion briefing. The 

moving party files a 25-page brief along with the motion. Civ. L.R. 7-2(b). Then, the 

opposing party files a 25-page brief in opposition to the motion. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a). Last, the 

moving party files a 15-page reply brief. Civ. L.R. 7-3(c), 7-4(b). “Once a reply is filed, no 

additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval.” Civ. L.R. 

7-3(d). 

Read in context, the “supplemental brief” plaintiff points to in the first line of Civ. L.R. 

7-3(c) is the 15-page reply brief. Indeed, it is explicitly a “supplemental brief or memorandum 

under Civil L.R. 7-4.” Both Civ. L.R. 7-3(a), for an opposition, and 7-3(c), for a reply, point to 

Civ. L.R. 7-4. Subpart (a) provides for three types of briefs, those in “support, opposition or 

reply to a motion . . . .” Subpart (b) provides:

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.

Simply, Civ. L.R. 7-4 does not contemplate supplemental briefs, except where a “Court 

expressly orders otherwise pursuant to a party’s request . . . .” 

Case 3:19-cv-02665-WHA Document 59 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The important takeaway, however, is that the use of the term “supplemental” in Civ. L.R. 

7-3(c) is confusing. Plaintiff is mistaken, her three supplemental briefs require prior 

permission. But the mistake was reasonable and made in good-faith reliance on the rules.

CONCLUSION

Finding plaintiff’s mistaken understanding of the Civil Local Rules reasonable, 

retroactive leave to file plaintiff’s three supplemental briefs is GRANTED. In recognition of 

plaintiff’s 90 pages of supplemental briefing, the secretary may submit a 10 PAGE supplemental 

opposition by JANUARY 9 AT NOON.

For the future, plaintiff shall please keep in mind the standard, three-part motion briefing 

scheme of the Civil Local Rules. When plaintiff moves for relief, she may file one 25-page 

brief and one 15-page reply brief. When the secretary moves for relief, plaintiff may file one 

25-page opposition brief. Of course, plaintiff may submit necessary affidavits, declarations, or 

exhibits with these briefs. 

If, however, plaintiff wishes to file supplemental briefing, she shall please ask leave of 

the Court and not file until permission is given. Plaintiff shall also please take note that 

requests for supplemental briefing do need to show good cause. See, e.g., Dongziao Yue v. 

Storage Tech. Corp., No. C 07-05850 JW, 2008 WL 11349928 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2009) 

(Judge James Ware). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2020. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-02665-WHA Document 59 Filed 01/02/20 Page 3 of 3