Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02755/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02755-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER—No. C-09-2755 RMW

TER

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 7/22/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNIVERSAL GRADING SERVICE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EBAY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

No. C-09-2755 RMW

ORDER

[Re Docket No. 130]

Plaintiffs have filed a second letter brief requesting administrative relief, this time seeking

leave to file a consolidated memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to defendants' two

motions to dismiss, not to exceed 50 pages, and also seeking "five more additional court days (or as

much time as the Court may see fit) to file this brief due to the press of other business during the

time which we must pare down our current draft." Plaintiffs' request for permission to file a

consolidated memorandum of 50 pages in length is denied. Plaintiffs' request for an additional five

days in which to file their opposition brief is granted.

Plaintiffs have not complied with Civil Local Rule 7-11 governing administrative motions

which, among other things, requires plaintiffs to submit either a stipulation with regard to the

requested relief or a declaration explaining why a stipulation could not be obtained. Plaintiffs' letter

brief is inadequate.

Case 5:09-cv-02755-RMW Document 133 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER—No. C-09-2755 RMW

TER 2

In addition, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate good cause for exceeding the page limits set

forth in Civil Local Rule 7-3. Plaintiffs assert that their consolidated 50-page brief "is designed to

save judicial resources since, as Plaintiffs believe, it will more efficiently address the arguments of

Defendants raised in their respective briefs." Plaintiffs' belief notwithstanding, plaintiffs have not

articulated any reason why a single 50-page consolidated brief is likely to save judicial resources. If

the opposition brief can be more effectively done in one consolidated brief, that brief should not

require the same number of pages as two separate briefs of the maximum length allowed by the

rules. The court is therefore not persuaded that judicial economy will be served by allowing

plaintiffs to file a 50-page opposition, even if that opposition responds to two motions to dismiss. 

The court, however, will allow plaintiffs to file a consolidated brief not exceeding 35 pages.

The court will allow plaintiffs five additional court days to file their opposition. The original

briefing schedule was set by stipulation and order on April 7, 2010 and called for defendants'

motions to be filed by May 14, and plaintiffs' oppositions to be filed by July 1. Defendants filed

their motions on May 14, and on June 29, the parties entered into a further stipulation granting

plaintiffs until July 23 to file their opposition papers. With one week to go before their oppositions

were due, plaintiffs filed their first request for leave to file a 100-page consolidated opposition,

apparently not contemplating the possibility that the request would be denied. Plaintiffs offer no

reason for seeking additional time, other than the "press of other business" while unexpectedly

having to pare down their current draft. Although plaintiffs have not made a persuasive showing of

good cause, the court will nevertheless allow plaintiffs an additional five days to file their

opposition. The court will also give defendants a similar extension for their reply briefs, if

requested.

DATED: 7/22/10

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-02755-RMW Document 133 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2