Minor v. Baker Mills, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHERRIS MINOR,

Case No. 20-cv-02901-RS

Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED BRIEF

BAKER MILLS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

In connection with their opposition to plaintiff’s motion for class certification, defendants filed two separate motions to exclude the reports and opinions of three of plaintiff’s experts, and a separate document objecting to a fourth expert’s declaration. The two motions expressly invoke Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) as a basis for excluding the expert opinions; the objection does not refer to Daubert but similarly challenges the reliability of the expert’s opinions.

After the opposition, the motions, and the objection were filed, plaintiff contacted defendants to object that the motions and the objections violate Civil Local Rule 7-3, which provides that “[a]ny evidentiary and procedural objections to the motion must be contained within the brief or memorandum.” Defendants ultimately agreed with plaintiff’s interpretation of the rule, and therefore now seek leave to file an amended opposition incorporating the substance of the 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 || documents, which typically distract from, rather than focus on, any material evidentiary issues. It does not unambiguously preclude appropriate Daubert motions, although if such motions are to be || filed separately, provision ordinarily must be made for a briefing schedule, as the rules do not || 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, || 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 in support of those motions will be permitted. Plaintiff may also, if she deems it necessary, file a separate response to the separate objection to the declaration of Robert Wolfe, Ph.D.

13 || ITISSO ORDERED.

15 Dated: September 23, 2021

RICHARD SEEBORG _ ief United States District Judge

. CASE No. 20-cv-02901-RS