Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-03504/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-03504-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO INCREASE PAGE LIMIT 

 1 

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MELANIE G. SAN PEDRO-SALCEDO,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE HAAGEN-DAZS SHOPPE 

COMPANY, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 5:17-cv-03504-EJD 

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

INCREASE PAGE LIMIT 

Re: Dkt. No. 108 

Defendant has filed an administrative motion seeking leave to file a reply brief in support 

of its summary judgment motion that exceeds the 15-page limit set by Civil Local Rule 7-2(c). 

Defendant contends that good cause exists because (a) Plaintiff’s opposition brief (Dkt. No. 100) 

contains numerous, substantive footnotes that do not comply with the court’s standing order for 

civil cases, and (b) the opposition improperly relies on previously undisclosed documents. The 

court’s standing order provides that “[f]ootnotes shall be in no less than 12-point type and shall be 

double-spaced.” Standing Order § IV.A.4. Plaintiff plainly did not comply with the standing 

order, and in doing so, Plaintiff also violated the 25-page limit set by Civil Local Rule 7-2(a). The 

court will not consider any of the footnotes in plaintiff’s opposition. Cho v. UCBH Holdings Inc., 

2011 WL 3809903, at *18 (N.D. Cal. 2011). As to Defendants’ second argument, Civil Local 

Rule 7-2(c) provides, “Any evidentiary . . . objections to the opposition must be contained within 

the reply brief or memorandum.” Accordingly, neither argument justifies allowing Defendant to 

file a reply brief that exceeds the page limit set by the Civil Local Rules. 

Case 5:17-cv-03504-EJD Document 109 Filed 09/12/19 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO INCREASE PAGE LIMIT 

 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 Californi

a

Defendant’s administrative motion is denied, and the court will not consider any footnotes 

that fail to comply with the court’s standing order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 12, 2019 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:17-cv-03504-EJD Document 109 Filed 09/12/19 Page 2 of 2