Heldt v. Tata Consultancy Services, LTD

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01696

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STRIKE TCS's RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' COST OBJECTIONS by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; granting {{704}} Administrative Motion to Strike Response to Plaintiff's Cost Objections. Accordingly the Court Grants Plaintiffs' motion and hereby STRIKES TCS's filing at Dkt. no. 703. The Court STRIKES portion of plaintiffs' objection as filed in violation of FRCP 54(d)(1) and Local Rule 54-2.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT, ET AL., CASE NO. 15-cv-01696-YGR 7 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' 8 vs. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STRIKE TCS'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' COST 9 TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD, OBJECTIONS 10 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 704 11 12 The Court has reviewed the papers submitted by the parties in connection with plaintiffs' Northern District of California United States District Court 13 administrative motion to strike TCS's response to plaintiffs' cost objections. (Dkt. Nos. 705, 706.) 14 Unfortunately, the bickering that has infected this litigation persists. 15 First, the Court is unpersuaded by TCS's current argument that it viewed plaintiffs' 16 objections filed January 28, 2019 as "a motion to deny TCS its costs in total" improperly styled as 17 an objection. TCS did not so characterize plaintiffs' objections in its actual response, which is 18 now the subject of the instant administrative motion. (Compare Dkt. No. 706 at 1 with Dkt. No. 19 703 at 1 (TCS notes therein "[p]ursuant to stipulation, plaintiffs filed an objection on January 28, 20 2019" to which "TCS hereby files its response") (emphasis supplied). The Court will not entertain 21 such revisionist explanations for violations of the local rules. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 22 plaintiffs' motion and hereby STRIKES TCS's filing at Docket Number 703. 23 Next, the Court agrees with TCS that plaintiffs' argument that "the Court should exercise 24 its discretion to decline to tax costs, as an award of costs would be inequitable" (see Dkt. No. 698 25 at 2:18-10:5) is not properly characterized as "specific objections to any item of cost claimed in 26 [TCS's] bill, succinctly setting forth the grounds of each objection." See L.R. 54-2(a). Moreover, 27 plaintiffs' argument attempts to circumvent the procedure for filing a proper motion for review of 28 the clerk's cost determination. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Therefore, the 1 Court STRIKES this portion of plaintiffs' objection as filed in violation of Federal Rule of Civil 2 Procedure 54(d)(1) and Local Rule 54-2. To the extent there is an objection to the clerk's cost 3 determination, plaintiffs shall comply with Rule 54(d)(1). 4 The Court considered issuing monetary sanctions against both parties for violations of the 5 rules but has already spent more than enough time on this squabble. Further rule violations will be 6 viewed as intentional and flagrant. Parties are hereby warned. 7 This Order terminates Docket Number 704. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: February 12, 2019 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2