Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00453/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00453-65/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

MARC OPPERMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PATH, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST 

ORDER SUSTAINING PLAINTIFFS' 

OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE 

SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF YELP’S 

REPLY; GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 

A SUR-REPLY; CONTINUING 

HEARING TO AUGUST 23

Re: Dkt. No. 764

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(1), the Plaintiffs have filed objections to evidence they 

assert Defendant Yelp raised for the first time in its reply brief in support of summary judgment. 

ECF No. 764. The Plaintiffs ask that the Court either not consider the new evidence or, in the 

alternative, grant leave to file a sur-reply. Id. Yelp filed a response opposing the Plaintiffs’ 

requests. ECF No. 767. 

“Where ‘new evidence is presented in a reply to a motion for summary judgment, the 

district court should not consider the new evidence without giving the [non-]movant an 

opportunity to respond.’” JG v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803, n. 14 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(alterations in the original) (quoting Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir.1996)). The 

Court agrees that Yelp presented new evidence in its reply ‒ namely, excerpts of deposition 

testimony from class representatives. See Yelp’s Reply Brief, ECF No. 759 at 10-16 (quoting 

from Exs. B, C, and D). Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ request to file a sur-reply to 

respond to this new evidence. The sur-reply must be filed no later than August 4, 2016 and must 

not exceed five pages. 

In light of the additional filing, the hearing on Yelp’s motion for summary judgment is 

Case 3:13-cv-00453-JST Document 773 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 2
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

continued from August 4, 2016 at 2:00 P.M. to August 23, 2016 at 9:30 A.M. To promote judicial 

efficiency, the hearing on Defendant EA/Chillingo’s motion for summary judgment is also 

continued from August 4, 2016 at 2:00 P.M. to August 23, 2016 at 9:30 A.M. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00453-JST Document 773 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 2