Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03787/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03787-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Injunctive/Declaratory Relief

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-03787-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR ENLARGING PAGE LIMITATION, GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO STRIKE, AND REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE RENEWED OPPOSITION AND REPLY TO 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

JUVENTINA MATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MANPOWER INC. / CALIFORNIA 

PENINSULA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-03787-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR 

ENLARGING PAGE LIMITATION, 

GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO STRIKE, AND 

REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE 

RENEWED OPPOSITION AND REPLY

TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 52, 71

On September 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an application for an order enlarging the page 

limits for Plaintiffs’ brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See ECF 

No. 52. In this application, Plaintiffs requested additional pages in order to provide the Court with 

“detail [on] the discovery disputes [in the case]” and how these disputes relate to Defendants’

motion for summary judgment. Id. at 2. Without receiving prior approval of the Court, Plaintiffs

then proceeded to file, on the same day, a thirty-five page opposition to Defendants’ summary 

judgment motion, in violation of Civil Local Rule 7-3. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) (“[S]uch brief or 

memorandum may not exceed 25 pages of text.”). Plaintiffs’ opposition, moreover, refers to the

Case 5:14-cv-03787-LHK Document 79 Filed 10/29/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 14-CV-03787-LHK 

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR ENLARGING PAGE LIMITATION, GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO STRIKE, AND REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE RENEWED OPPOSITION AND REPLY TO 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

alleged discovery disputes only in passing: “Defendants’ motion [for summary judgment] must be 

denied due to their deliberate efforts to frustrate discovery, as detailed in the concurrently filed 

Rule 56(d) Request.” ECF No. 70 at 8 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs thus filed a separate sevenpage motion that addressed the alleged discovery disputes, in addition to Plaintiffs’ thirty-five 

page opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 65. 

On September 10, 2015, Plaintiffs also filed objections to the Declarations of Mark Horne 

and Sunny Ackerman. See ECF No. 53. These filings contravene Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), which 

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

the brief or memorandum.” In order to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs should 

have included any objections to the Horne and Ackerman Declarations in Plaintiffs’ opposition to 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, not in a separately filed document. 

On September 14, 2015, Defendants moved to oppose Plaintiffs’ application and moved to 

strike Plaintiffs’ separately-filed objections. ECF No. 71. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ application and GRANTS 

Defendants’ motion to strike. The Court also strikes Plaintiffs’ separate Rule 56(d) motion—any 

arguments in this motion should have been included in Plaintiffs’ opposition. The Court hereby 

ORDERS Plaintiffs to file a renewed opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment by 

November 5, 2015. This opposition brief must comport with Civil Local Rule 7-3: Plaintiffs’

opposition shall not exceed 25 pages in length, and Plaintiffs shall not file any separate objections

or motions. Defendants shall file a renewed reply by November 12, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03787-LHK Document 79 Filed 10/29/15 Page 2 of 2