Opinion
20-cv-04191 -BLF
01-16-2024
LIONEL RUBALCAVA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER STRIKING PAGES 16-17 OF CITY DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO LIMIT OR EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
[Re: ECF 241]
BETH LAB SON FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pages 16-17 of Defendants' Reply in Further Support of their Motion to Limit or Exclude Expert Testimony (ECF 241) are STRICKEN and will not be considered by the Court.
Defendants' 17-page reply brief exceeds the 15-page limit for reply briefs set forth in this district's Civil Local Rules. See Civ. L.R. 7-4(b) (“Unless the Court expressly orders otherwise pursuant to a party's request made prior to the due date, briefs or memoranda filed with opposition papers may not exceed 25 pages of text and the reply brief or memorandum may not exceed 15 pages of text.”). Moreover, when the Court previously struck Defendants' oppositions to Plaintiff's Daubert motions for being over the applicable page limit, the Court expressly advised the parties that, “Consistent with the Court's 25-page limit on Daubert motions, replies in support of Daubert motions are limited to a total of 15 pages per side.” See Order, ECF 229. Given Defendants' decision to file overlength briefing a second time, in disregard of the Court's express direction, the Court declines to allow Defendants to file a corrected reply brief. Any argument made incomplete by this order will be forfeited by Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.