Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02329/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02329-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FREE RANGE CONTENT, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02329-BLF 

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS' 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO 

DISMISS THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

[Re: ECF 99, 100]

On November 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 

ECF 99. Defendant objects to the Opposition on the grounds that it violates the Court’s Standing 

Order Re Civil Cases with respect to the use of footnotes. ECF 100. Plaintiffs filed a brief in 

response to Defendant’s objection. ECF 101.

The Standing Order provides that footnotes “are to be used sparingly and citations to 

textual matter shall not be contained in footnotes.” Standing Order at 4. Every page of the 

Opposition contains at least two—and, on one page, eight—footnotes. See Opp. at 3. The lines 

consumed by single-spaced footnotes outnumber the lines of double-spaced text on nearly half of 

the brief’s pages. See Opp., see also Def.’s Obj. at 1. Defendant notes that, through this use of 

footnotes, Plaintiffs included 451 lines of single-spaced text—the equivalent of more than 16 

pages had Plaintiffs complied with the Local Civil Rules’ requirement that text in the body of the 

brief be double-spaced with no more than 28 lines per page, see Civ. L. R. 3-4(c)(2). 

The Court has previously remarked on Plaintiffs’ use of “copious (and frankly excessive) 

footnotes.” See Order Granting Mot. for Recon., ECF 91 at 6, n. 2. Plaintiffs’ use of footnotes in 

its Opposition clearly violates the Court’s Standing Order. 

Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 102 Filed 11/16/15 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

the Third Amended Complaint. The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file an opposition that complies 

with the Standing Order and Local Civil Rules, contains no footnotes, and does not exceed 25 

pages inclusive of the signature page by no later than November 25, 2015. Pursuant to the parties’ 

stipulated briefing schedule, Defendant’s Reply shall be due no later than December 16, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2015 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 102 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 2