Lessin v. Ford Motor Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL Case No.: 19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of 12 themselves and others similarly ORDER CONTINUING HEARING 13 situated, AND COMPELLING Plaintiffs, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON 14 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO v. 15 MOTION FOR SUMMARY FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware JUDGMENT 16 corporation; and Does 1 through 10, 17 inclusive, Defendants. 18

19 Before the Court is Defendant Ford Motor Co.’s Motion for Partial Summary 20 Judgment. (Doc. No. 122.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion, (Doc. No. 141), to 21 which Ford replied, (Doc. No. 154). The hearing is currently set for August 15, 2024 at 22 2:00 p.m. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds supplemental briefing is required 23 to fairly adjudicate Ford’s pending motion. Accordingly, the Hearing on Motion for 24 Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 122), Motion for Class Certification, (Doc. No. 120), and 25 the Motions to Exclude Expert Opinions, (Doc. Nos. 137, 139, 150, 151, and 152), is 26 CONTINUED to Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. 27 /// 28 l The Court finds Plaintiffs have inadequately met their burden in opposing Ford’s 2 || motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs assert the details of the alleged Suspension 3 ||Defect are “described in detail in Plaintiffs’ pending class certification motion” and 4 || thereafter fail to support many of their assertions with any citation to the evidentiary record. 5 ||Moreover, several of the citations that Plaintiffs do offer span multiple exhibits without 6 || directing the Court to the specific pages they rely upon. Indeed, it bears repeating the 7 ||familiar maxim: “judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” /ndep. 8 || Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003). “Nor are they 9 archaeologists searching for treasure. Put simply, the Court is not obligated to paw over 10 || files in order to make a party’s claim.” Krause v. Nev. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:12-CV-00342- 11 |] JCM, 2014 WL 99178, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2014). 12 Thus, the Court finds supplemental briefing is necessary to fairly adjudicate this 13 |/motion. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file a revised opposition brief 14 || setting forth specific exhibits, with citations to specific pages, that support their position 15 |/no later than August 23, 2024. Further failure may result in granting of the motion for 16 |}summary judgment. 17 Ford is further afforded an opportunity to revise its reply brief, and the Court 18 ||} ORDERS the reply brief be filed no later than August 30, 2024. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: August 8, 2024 © 22 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28