Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-NLS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARA ELIZABETH SIEGLER and 

Sara Elizabeth Siegler,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC.,

TNK THERAPEUTICS, INC., BDL

PRODUCTS, INC., CARGENIX

HOLDINGS LLC, TUFTS MEDICAL

CENTER, PROSPECT

CHARTERCARE ROGER WILLIAMS

MEDICAL CENTER LLC, HENRY JI,

RICHARD PAUL JUNGHANS,

STEVEN C. KATZ, and THE BOARD

OF DIRECTORS OF SORRENTO

THERAPEUTICS, INC.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB

ORDER ON ECF NOS. 107, 109

Before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff Sara Elizabeth Siegler: a 

motion to extend, filed June 20, 2019, and a fifth omnibus motion, filed June 26, 

2019. (ECF Nos. 107, 109.) Defendants have responded to both motions by an 

opposition filed June 27, 2019. (ECF No. 110.)

Both motions relate to the Court’s June 20, 2019 order. (ECF No. 106.) 

There, the Court granted, inter alia, Plaintiff’s requests to (1) withdraw and refile

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 112 Filed 06/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
- 1 - CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-BGS

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

her previously-filed opposition briefs to two motions to dismiss filed by defendants, 

(2) extend the deadline on refiling, and (3) exceed the 25 page maximum page limit

on those opposition briefs. The Court permitted Plaintiff to file new opposition 

briefs up to 30 pages per brief, and extended the due date on those oppositions, 

from June 10, 2019, to July 1, 2019. The Court selected the July 1, 2019 deadline

to account for any reply Defendants might file, and for the Court to make adequate 

review of the parties’ moving papers before the August 2, 2019 hearing on the 

motions to dismiss. 

Now, Plaintiff asks the Court to extend the deadline on her opposition briefs

once more, from July 1, 2019 to “July 30, 2019” at the earliest. (ECF No. 107, at 

1.) To preserve the original hearing date of August 2, 2019 on Defendants’ motions 

to dismiss, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff’s request: 

Plaintiff’s opposition briefs are due no later than July 15, 2019. Any reply by 

Defendants is due no later than July 22, 2019.

Plaintiff also asks for leave to exceed 30 pages per opposition brief. Plaintiff 

argues that the Court’s prior order granting her leave to file opposition briefs up to 

30 pages per brief did not significantly grant her pages above the 25 page limit 

prescribed by the local rules. (ECF No. 109-1, at 2 (contending that the prior order 

“capped the page length of each opposition memoranda at 30 pages, which is only 5 

pages more than allowed by the rules”).) But Plaintiff misunderstands the Local 

Rules. As this Court has held elsewhere, Local Civil Rule 7.1.h limits memoranda

to 25 pages per party for all motions noticed for a single motion day. See Olney v. 

Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 993 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1228 n.1 (S.D. Cal. 2014). Thus, 

the Court’s prior order, allowing Plaintiff to file two opposition briefs for motions 

noticed for the same motion hearing day, of 30 pages each—i.e., 60 pages total, or 

35 page in excess of the page limit prescribed by Rule 7.1.h—is considerable. The 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 112 Filed 06/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
- 2 - CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-BGS

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

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to file two opposition briefs in excess of 30 

pages each. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 28, 2019

 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 112 Filed 06/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3