Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02988/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02988-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

JEAN MACDONALD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02988-JST 

ORDER REGARDING BILLING 

RECORDS; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; 

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. ECF No. 93. This 

order addresses Plaintiffs’ billing records and amended reply brief. 

Billing Records: It is difficult for the Court to determine whether the hours claimed by 

Plaintiffs’ counsel are reasonable, because of the volume and organization of the billing records 

(1,507 chronologically listed billing entries). See ECF No. 94-2, Zohdy Decl., Ex. 2. To simplify 

the Court’s review, counsel for Plaintiffs are ordered to file a chart that groups the billing entries 

by task and shows the subtotal for each attorney or paralegal’s hours for each task, as well as an 

overall hours and dollar total for each attorney or paralegal. The chart must be filed by February 

22, 2016. 

Amended Reply Brief: Plaintiffs originally filed their reply brief on February 5, 2016. 

ECF No. 100. The brief was 26 pages in length, in violation of Civil Local Rule 7-4(b), which 

limits reply briefs to 15 pages without leave of court. On February 10, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an

amended reply brief, which they represented “contain[ed] no substantive changes from the priorfiled Reply [but] that complies with the 15-page limit.” ECF No. 101 at 6 n.1.

The amended reply brief appears not to conform to the local rules in other important ways, 

Case 3:13-cv-02988-JST Document 102 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 3
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

however.1 Civil Local Rule 3-4(c)(2) provides, with respect to papers presented for filing:

Text must appear on one side only and must be double-spaced with 

no more than 28 lines per page, except for the identification of 

counsel, title of the case, footnotes and quotations. Typewritten text 

may be no less than standard pica or 12-point type in the Courier 

font or equivalent, spaced 10 characters per horizontal inch. Printed 

text may be proportionally spaced, provided the type may not be 

smaller than 12-point standard font (e.g., Times New Roman). The 

text of footnotes and quotations must also conform to these font 

requirements.

Plaintiffs’ amended reply brief contains body text in 12-point Times New Roman font but uses

non-standard character spacing. It appears Plaintiffs condensed the character spacing uniformly 

by 0.6 points. It also appears Plaintiffs condensed the footnote line spacing from a single-spaced 

line to a multiple of 0.73. The result is that Plaintiffs’ reply brief fits substantially more than 15 

pages’ worth of text into 15 printed pages. Had Plaintiffs used the normal and customary spacing 

required by the local rules, the brief would have been much longer.2 

Civil Local Rule 7-4(b) provides: “Unless the Court expressly orders otherwise pursuant 

to a party’s request made prior to the due date, briefs or memoranda filed with opposition papers 

may not exceed 25 pages of text and the reply brief or memorandum may not exceed 15 pages of 

text.” Plaintiffs did not make such a request. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ reply brief exceeds the 

page limits set out by Local Rule 7-4(b) without the Court’s authorization. The net effect of this 

is that Plaintiffs are attempting unfairly to require the Court and their opponents to read, digest, 

and respond to an overlength brief. 

The Court now orders Plaintiffs to take one of the following actions by February 22, 2016:

1. File a response to this order demonstrating that Plaintiffs’ reply brief complies

with the Local Rules; or 

2. File an amended brief that complies with the Local Rules, which amendments shall 

consist solely of the use of proper character spacing and the elimination of sufficient text from the 

original responses to bring the responses within the appropriate page limit, clearly indicating in a 

 

1

It was also late, the reply brief having been due on February 5, 2016. ECF No. 98.

 

2

 For example, the passage on page 1 (ECF page 6), lines 1-15, would be four lines longer if were 

spaced correctly. 

Case 3:13-cv-02988-JST Document 102 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

separate, marked-up document which text has been eliminated; or 

3. File a response SHOWING CAUSE why Plaintiffs’ reply should not be stricken. 

The hearing on the motion is continued from February 25, 2016 to March 10, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02988-JST Document 102 Filed 02/16/16 Page 3 of 3