Corcoran et al v. CVS Health Corporation

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03504

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO CERTAIN DEFENSE REPLY FILINGS re 317 Objection, filed by Onnolee Samuelson, Robert Jenks, Robert Garber, Carl Washington, Debbie Barrett, Zulema Avis, Tyler Clark. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/7/2017.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, ET AL., CASE NO. 15-cv-03504-YGR 7 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO 8 vs. CERTAIN DEFENSE REPLY FILINGS 9 CVS HEALTH, ET AL., Re: Dkt. No. 317 10 Defendants. 11 On July 5, 2017, plaintiffs filed objections to certain documents defendants filed in 12 connection with their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 317.) Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Specifically, plaintiffs object to the following: (i) defendants' reply to plaintiffs' responsive 14 statement of facts as not allowed under this Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases; (ii) defense 15 Exhibit 524, on the grounds that it is a misleading and incomplete compilation of deposition 16 testimony; and (iii) defense Exhibit 536, on the grounds that it constitutes improper legal argument 17 that should have been contained in defendants' reply brief. 18 The Court ORDERS as follows: 19 1) With respect to defendants' reply to plaintiffs' responsive statement of facts at Docket 20 Number 315-1, the Court SUSTAINS plaintiffs' objection in part and STRIKES Docket Number 315- 21 1 from the bottom of page 2 starting with the chart to the bottom of page 32 where plaintiffs' 22 "Additional Facts and Supporting Evidence" begins. The Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases 23 provides that parties moving for summary judgment must include a separate, short, and concise 24 statement of the material facts, and allows for the party opposing such motion one responsive 25 separate statement, not to exceed five additional pages beyond the number of pages in the opening 26 statement. See Standing Order in Civil Cases § 9(c). No permission was granted for a reply to the 27 same. However, a response to plaintiffs' additional facts is appropriate. 28 1 2) With respect to defense Exhibit 524 at Docket Number 315-6, the Court OVERRULES 2 plaintiffs' objection. Such a compilation of deposition testimony was submitted in response to 3 plaintiffs' assertions and designation of deposition transcripts purporting to demonstrate the 4 importance of pricing in their purchasing decisions. However, in the interest of judicial economy 5 and the accuracy of the record, the Court will entertain a request to counter-designate additional 6 portions of plaintiffs' deposition testimony without further argument to cure what plaintiffs argue 7 are misleading and incomplete excerpts in Exhibit 524. Plaintiffs must file such counter- 8 designations no later than July 11, 2017. 9 3) With respect to defense Exhibit 536 at Docket Number 315-18, the Court SUSTAINS 10 plaintiffs' objections and STRIKES defense Exhibit 536 from the record. Such constitutes legal 11 argument in response to plaintiffs' objections to evidence submitted in defendants' motion for 12 summary judgment. As such, the arguments should be contained within the brief itself pursuant to Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Civil Local Rule 7-3. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: July 7, 2017 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2