Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04438/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04438-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

DIMITRIOS KOUREPIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SONY EUROPE LTD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04438-MEJ 

ORDER STRIKING APPENDIX TO 

DEFENDANT SONY EUROPE LTD.’S 

REPLY MEMORANDUM

Dkt. Nos. 33, 34, 36

In the Northern District of California, “[a]ny evidentiary and procedural objections to the 

opposition must be contained within the reply brief or memorandum. Pursuant Civil L.R. 7-4(b), 

the reply brief memorandum may not exceed 15 pages of text.” Civil L.R. 7-3(c). Speciallyappearing Defendant Sony Europe Ltd. (“Defendant”) nonetheless filed a 15-page appendix of 

evidentiary objections with its Reply brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss. See Reply at 16-31

(“Appendix”), Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiffs Dimitrios Kourepis and George Damigos (“Plaintiffs”) 

move to strike the Appendix. See Mot. to Strike, Dkt. No. 34. Defendant opposed the Motion to 

Strike, representing its counsel had obtained the Court’s permission. See Opp’n at 1, Dkt. No. 35

(“The Court’s clerk stated that the Court would accept the evidentiary objections in an appendix 

and to make sure the appendix was included in the Court’s courtesy copy.”). On November 2, 

2016, five days after filing the Reply, Defendant filed an Administrative Motion to File the 

Appendix. Admin. Mot., Dkt. No. 36. 

The Court appreciates Defendant’s position that the Appendix is provided for ease of 

reference, but even if counsel accurately represents her understanding of the conversation with the 

Court’s clerk, the Court’s Local Rules do not allow the parties to deviate from those rules 

“[u]nless the Court expressly orders otherwise[.]” Civil L.R. 7-4(b) (emphasis added). A verbal 

Case 3:16-cv-04438-MEJ Document 42 Filed 11/15/16 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

statement from the Court’s clerk does not constitute an express order of the Court. Similarly, 

requesting leave to file the Appendix days after filing it does not constitute a request made prior to 

the due date of the filing. 

The Court accordingly GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike, DENIES Defendant’s 

Administrative Motion to File the Appendix, and STRIKES the Appendix for failure to conform

with the Local Rules. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-04438-MEJ Document 42 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 2