1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SHERRIS MINOR, 10 Case No. 20-cv-02901-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED BRIEF BAKER MILLS, INC., et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 16 In connection with their opposition to plaintiff’s motion for class certification, defendants 17 filed two separate motions to exclude the reports and opinions of three of plaintiff’s experts, and a 18 separate document objecting to a fourth expert’s declaration. The two motions expressly invoke 19 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,

(1993) as a basis for excluding the expert 20 opinions; the objection does not refer to Daubert but similarly challenges the reliability of the 21 expert’s opinions. 22 After the opposition, the motions, and the objection were filed, plaintiff contacted 23 defendants to object that the motions and the objections violate Civil Local Rule 7-3, which 24 provides that “[a]ny evidentiary and procedural objections to the motion must be contained within 25 the brief or memorandum.” Defendants ultimately agreed with plaintiff’s interpretation of the rule, 26 and therefore now seek leave to file an amended opposition incorporating the substance of the 27 motions and objections in the brief, but exceeding the ordinary page limits by seven pages. 1 Local Rule 7-3 is primarily intended to preclude separately filed “laundry list” objection 2 || documents, which typically distract from, rather than focus on, any material evidentiary issues. It 3 does not unambiguously preclude appropriate Daubert motions, although if such motions are to be 4 || filed separately, provision ordinarily must be made for a briefing schedule, as the rules do not 5 || expressly permit motions on less than 35 days’ notice. 6 The parties’ attempt to adhere faithfully to the rules is always appreciated. At this juncture, 7 || however, it would not serve judicial efficiency to require an amended, but overlong, opposition. 8 || Accordingly, defendants’ motion to for leave to file an amended opposition brief is denied. 9 Plaintiff may file separate oppositions to the two Daubert motions with its reply. No reply 10 || in support of those motions will be permitted. Plaintiff may also, if she deems it necessary, file a 11 separate response to the separate objection to the declaration of Robert Wolfe, Ph.D. 12

13 || ITISSO ORDERED. 14 2 15 Dated: September 23, 2021

5 RICHARD SEEBORG _ ief United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 . CASE No. 20-cv-02901-RS