Morgan v. Rohr, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHANIEL MORGAN and MICHAEL Case No.: 20-cv-574-GPC-AHG BEVAN, individually and on behalf of 12 others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 EX PARTE MOTION TO FILE Plaintiffs, EXCESS PAGES 14 v. 15 [ECF No. 156] ROHR, INC., et al., 16 Defendants. 17

18 Before the Court is Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion for an Order Extending the Page 19 Limit on Defendants’ Motion to Decertify Class. ECF No. 156. Plaintiffs filed an 20 Opposition. ECF No. 158. 21 Local Rule 7.1(h) provides a 25-page page limit for briefs or memoranda. 22 Defendants request that this Court grant leave allowing Defendants’ Motion to Decertify 23 Class to be filed at 35 pages. ECF No. 156 at 3. Defendants’ Motion is due May 4, 2023. 24 Id. Defendants state this page enlargement is necessary because “[t]he motion involves 25 decertifying six separate subclasses, each with distinct theories of liability.” Id. They 26 27 1 argue that the evidence and issues “are so extensive that they cannot be adequately 2 discussed within 25 pages.” Id. 3 Plaintiffs oppose and argue that Defendants have failed “to establish extraordinary 4 circumstances that justify ex parte relief.” ECF No. 158 at 2. Plaintiffs argue that there is 5 no good cause because Defendants have had “ample time” to file a properly noticed 6 motion requesting a page extension, “but waited until two weeks before the filing 7 deadline before opting to now seek relief on an ex parte basis.” Id. They further argue 8 Defendants will not suffer irreparable prejudice simply because the issues to be briefed 9 are extensive. Id. To support this, Plaintiffs assert that they did not request a 10 commensurate additional 10-pages on their Motion for Class Certification, even though 11 that Motion “addressed both a broader proposed class . . . and a greater number of issues 12 and theories of liability than the ones that were ultimately included in the Court’s 13 Certification Order.” Id. at 4. 14 A district court has the inherent power to control its own docket, and this includes 15 granting extensions of the page limits provided in the Civil Local Rules. United States v. 16 RAJMP, Inc., 2018 WL 5921358, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2018) (citing Traylor Bros., 17 Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 2012 WL 1019966, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2012); 18 United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008)). A court has “full 19 discretion” to allow a filing in excess of the page limit. Traylor Bros., Inc., 2012 WL 20 1019966, at *2. 21 Here, the Court finds it reasonable to GRANT Defendants’ request for an 22 additional ten (10) pages on their Motion to Decertify Class. The Court finds it 23 reasonable that additional pages might be necessary to brief the decertification of six 24 separate subclasses involving nineteen theories of liability. ECF No. 156 at 3-4. The 25 Court has an interest in ensuring the Parties adequately brief all relevant issues. Further, 26 27 1 || the Court does not find that an additional 10 pages of briefing prejudices Plaintiffs in any 2 || meaningful way. 3 As Plaintiffs request, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs an additional ten (10) pages 4 || for their opposition to the Motion to Decertify. However, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ 5 || request to have proportionate extensions for all pretrial motions. ECF No. 158 at 5. The 6 || Court does not find this request justified, absent a showing of the issues to be addressed 7 || and a discussion of why excess briefing is necessary to address the issues. 8 CONCLUSION 9 The Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion for an Order Extending 10 || the Page Limit on Defendants’ Motion to Decertify Class. Defendants are permitted to 11 || file a Motion to Decertify up to 35 pages in length. Plaintiffs are permitted to file an 12 || opposition of equal length. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: April 26, 2023 2 15 Hon. athe Cae 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20-cv-574-GPC-AHG