From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vedachalam v. Tata Consultancy Servs. Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 2, 2011
No. C 06-0963 CW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)

Opinion

No. C 06-0963 CW

11-02-2011

GOPI VEDACHALAM and KANGANA BERI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD, an Indian Corporation; and TATA SONS, LTD, an Indian Corporation, Defendants.


ORDER STRIKING

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION

TO STRIKE

DEFENDANTS'

EVIDENCE IN

SUPPORT OF

OPPOSITION TO

MOTION FOR CLASS

CERTIFICATION

(Docket No. 254)

On April 25, 2011, Plaintiffs Gopi Vedachalam and Kangani Beri filed a Motion for Class Certification. The briefing and hearing schedule were continued twice following requests by the parties. On September 12, 2011, the Court granted Defendants ten additional pages for their opposition and Plaintiffs ten additional pages for their reply. On September 16, 2011, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On October 28, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a twenty-five page reply to Defendants' opposition. On the same day, Plaintiffs also filed a separate twenty-five page motion to strike certain pieces of evidence submitted by Defendants with their opposition. Between their reply brief and the motion to strike, Plaintiffs have filed a total of fifty pages of text.

Plaintiffs' motion to strike violated Local Rule 7-3(c), which states, "Any evidentiary and procedural objections to the opposition must be contained within the reply brief or memorandum." Because Plaintiffs have been granted ten additional pages, the reply brief, including any evidentiary and procedural objections, may not exceed twenty-five pages in total. See Local Rule 7-3(c) & 7-4(b) (reply briefs may not exceed fifteen pages of text).

Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiffs' motion to strike (Docket No. 254). Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend and refile their reply brief, incorporating any evidentiary objections or responses to such objections. Plaintiffs' refiled reply is due Thursday, November 3, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Vedachalam v. Tata Consultancy Servs. Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 2, 2011
No. C 06-0963 CW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)
Case details for

Vedachalam v. Tata Consultancy Servs. Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:GOPI VEDACHALAM and KANGANA BERI, on behalf of themselves and all others…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 2, 2011

Citations

No. C 06-0963 CW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)