Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00751/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00751-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:0001 Antitrust Litigation (Monopolizing Trade)

---

1

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

BONA FIDE CONGLOMERATE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOURCEAMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY 

RESPONDING TO DEFENDANT’S 

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

[ECF No. 464.]

On July 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for permission to file a surreply responding to Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s evidence offered in opposition to 

Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, partial summary 

judgment. (Dkt. No. 464.)

“Ex parte applications are a form of emergency relief that will only be granted upon 

an adequate showing of good cause or irreparable injury to the party seeking relief.” Clark 

v. Time Warner Cable, No. CV 07 1797 VBF(RCX), 2007 WL 1334965 at *1 (C.D. Cal. 

May 3, 2007) (citing Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 

492 (C.D. Cal. 1995)). An ex parte application must address why the regular noticed 

motion procedures must be bypassed. Mission Power Eng’g Co., 883 F. Supp. at 492. The 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 468 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

reasons provided “must be supported by deposition transcripts or by affidavits or 

declarations whose contents would be admissible if the deponents, affiants or declarants 

were testifying in court.” Id. Second, the moving party must be “without fault” in creating 

the need for ex parte relief or establish that the urgency occurred as a result of excusable 

neglect. Id.; see also Langer v. McHale, No. 13CV2721-CAB-NLS, 2014 WL 4922351, at 

*2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2014) (denying ex parte motion because defendants failed to make 

an adequate showing of good cause or irreparable injury to warrant ex parte relief).

“A party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be 

presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). The 

Advisory Committee Notes regarding the 2010 amendments to Rule 56 explain:

Subdivision (c)(2) provides that a party may object that material cited to support or 

dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence. 

The objection functions much as an objection at trial, adjusted for the pretrial 

setting. The burden is on the proponent to show that the material is admissible as 

presented or to explain the admissible form that is anticipated. There is no need to 

make a separate motion to strike. If the case goes to trial, failure to challenge 

admissibility at the summary-judgment stage does not forfeit the right to challenge 

admissibility at trial.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee’s note. Courts have observed that Rule 56(c)(2) 

contemplates allowing the proponent of the evidence to respond to evidentiary objections. 

See, e.g., SEC v. Strategic Glob. Investments, Inc., No. 16-CV-514 JLB (WVG), 2017 

WL 1387187, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2017) (“When a party objects that material cited

to dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible at trial, as 

Plaintiff does here, the burden shifts to the proponent of the evidence to either show that 

the material is admissible as presented or explain the admissible form that it anticipates it 

will produce at trial.”).

Defendant attached to its reply brief 67 pages of evidentiary objections to Plaintiff’s 

evidence offered in opposition to Defendant’s pending motion. (Dkt. Nos. 459-2, 459-3.) 

Plaintiff’s proposed sur-reply is likewise lengthy. (Dkt. No. 464-1.) The Court observes 

that the parties have also asserted evidentiary objections in response to each other’s separate 

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 468 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS

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

statements of undisputed material facts. While the Court expresses concern regarding the 

voluminous evidentiary objections asserted in relation to the pending motion for summary 

judgment, because Plaintiff’s sur-reply ultimately consists solely of responses to 

Defendant’s evidentiary objections, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s leave to file its 

proposed sur-reply.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2017

Case 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS Document 468 Filed 07/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3