Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02086/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02086-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL” 

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

_____________________________________/

This Order Relates To:

MDL Dkt. No. 6860

Napleton, No. 3:16-cv-02086-CRB

_____________________________________/

MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO STRIKE AND TO 

ENFORCE LOCAL RULE 7–3(D)(1)

After plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support of class certification, the Bosch defendants

filed a five-page document that included several objections to new evidence that plaintiffs 

submitted with their reply. (See MDL Dkt. No. 6841.) Plaintiffs responded by filing an 

administrative motion to strike that five-page document as an improper sur-reply. 

Having reviewed the document, the Court concludes that it complies with the local rules, 

which permit parties to “file and serve an Objection to Reply Evidence, which may not exceed 

5 pages of text.” Civil L.R. 7–3(d)(1). While an Objection to Reply Evidence may not include 

“further argument on the motion,” id., the local rules do not prohibit an objecting party from 

including within an Objection to Reply Evidence arguments in support of its objections, as the 

Bosch defendants did here. 

Having concluded that the Bosch defendants’ objections comply with the local rules, the 

Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to strike them. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2019

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02086-CRB Document 198 Filed 11/25/19 Page 1 of 1