Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03791/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03791-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER STRIKING OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

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

NATHALIE THUY VAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER STRIKING OBJECTIONS TO 

EVIDENCE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 220-16, 225-5

On March 24, 2016, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 211, 

218. On April 7, 2016, Defendants Language Line, LLC and Language Line Services, Inc. 

(collectively, “Defendants”) opposed Plaintiff Nathalie Thuy Van’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for summary 

judgment. ECF No. 220. In support of Defendants’ twenty-one page opposition, Defendants filed 

thirty pages of objections to the evidence presented by Plaintiff. ECF No. 220-16. Plaintiff has not 

filed a reply in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and the deadline to do so has now 

passed.

On April 7, 2014, Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 221. 

Defendants filed a fifteen page reply brief on April 14, 2016. ECF No. 225. In support of Defendants’

reply, Defendants filed thirty-five pages of objections to the evidence presented with Plaintiff’s 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 226 Filed 04/15/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER STRIKING OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

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

opposition. ECF No. 225-5. 

In sum, Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ summary judgment evidence comprise 65 pages

in addition to Defendants’ briefs. These filings contravene Civil Local Rule 7-3, which provides that 

“[a]ny evidentiary and procedural objections to the motion [or opposition] must be contained within 

the brief or memorandum.” See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a), (c). Civil Local Rule 7-3 also provides that an 

opposition brief “may not exceed 25 pages of text” while a reply brief “may not exceed 15 pages of 

text.” See id. In order to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-3, Defendants should have included any 

evidentiary objections in Defendants’ briefs, not in separately filed documents. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court STRIKES Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s evidence, 

ECF Nos. 220-16 and 225-5. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 226 Filed 04/15/16 Page 2 of 2