Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376-35/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Campbell
Plaintiff
PriceWaterhouse Coopers, LLP
Defendant
Sarah Sobek
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

 This motion may more properly be labeled a motion for 1

summary adjudication. Nonetheless, for purposes of this motion,

the court adopts plaintiffs’ term.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON CAMPBELL and

SARAH SOBEK, individually,

and on behalf of all other

similarly situated current

and former employees of 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,,

NO. CIV. S-06-2376 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v.

PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS, LLP, O R D E R

a Limited Liability Partnership;,

and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendant.

 /

Pending before the court is defendant PricwaterhouseCoopers’s

(“PwC”) motion to strike certain evidence submitted by plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the affirmative 1

defense of exemption (“Plaintiffs’ MSJ”) on September 22, 2008.

On November 17, 2008, plaintiffs filed their reply to PwC’s

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 384 Filed 03/05/09 Page 1 of 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

 The depositions whose excerpts PwC challenges occurred on 2

October 15 and 22, 2008, and therefore prior to PwC’s filing of its

motion.

2

opposition to this motion. Accompanying this reply was a

declaration by plaintiff’s counsel William Kershaw, to which were

attached excerpts from two depositions conducted after Plaintiffs’

MSJ was filed, as well as evidence produced by PwC in the

intervening period. PwC moves to strike this evidence as

inappropriately submitted for the first time on reply.

PwC filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on this same

affirmative defense on October 27, 2008. Plaintiffs filed their 2

opposition to the cross-motion on November 20, 2008, three days

after plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their own motion.

Copies of the challenged evidence were also submitted accompanying

plaintiffs’ opposition. PwC subsequently filed a reply in support

of its cross-motion. PwC’s reply presented an opportunity to

address the challenged evidence, and PwC in fact addressed it.

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, a court may

consider evidence submitted for the first time in a reply if the

adverse party has had an opportunity to respond. El Pollo Loco,

Inc. v. Hashim, 316 F.3d 1032, 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Provenz

v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996)). This is true even

when the moving party’s additional evidence is “new” in that it

goes beyond merely countering evidence submitted in opposition to

the motion for summary judgment. The policy served by excluding

new evidence is the avoidance of prejudice to the non-moving party.

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 384 Filed 03/05/09 Page 2 of 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

3

Provenz, 102 F.3d at 1483. Here, where PwC has actually responded

to the challenged evidence in the context of its cross-motion on

the exact same issues, there is no prejudice. Absent prejudice,

the court’s preference for deciding cases on the merits warrants

consideration of this evidence.

For the reasons stated above, PwC’s motion to strike (Doc. No.

351) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 5, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 384 Filed 03/05/09 Page 3 of 3