U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sunshine Raisin Corporation ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT Case No. 1:21-cv-01424-JLT-HBK OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT Plaintiff, SELECT STAFFING’S MOTION FOR 13 ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF1 v. 14 (Doc. No. 51) SUNSHINE RAISIN CORPORATION 15 dba National Raisin Company; REAL TIME STAFFING SERVICES, LLC dba 16 Select Staffing; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Pending before the Court is Defendant Real Time Staffing Services LLC’s (“Select”) 20 Motion for Administrative Relief. (Doc No. 51). Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 21 Commission (“EEOC” or “Plaintiff”) filed an Opposition. (Doc. No. 52). For the reasons set 22 forth below, the undersigned grants in part and denies in part Select’s Motion and grants Select 23 leave to file a sur-reply. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff EEOC filed a Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 48), to which Select filed an 26 Opposition (Doc. No. 49). Plaintiff filed a 17-page Reply. (Doc. No. 50). Plaintiff exceeded by 27 1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 28 (E.D. Cal. 2022). 1 seven pages the 10-page limit set forth in the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order 2 (“CMSO”) without seeking leave of the Court. (Doc. No. 26 at 4). As a sanction, Select asks the 3 Court to strike Plaintiff’s Reply or in the alternative, grant Select leave to file a sur-reply. (Doc. 4 No. 51 at 1). 5 ANALYSIS 6 A brief exceeding the page limits unfairly advantages the filing party. See Elliott v. QF 7 Circa 37, LLC, 2017 WL 5138291, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017) (“The overly excessive length 8 of the submission is also prejudicial to Defendants given that the applicable Local Rule generally 9 limits the length of a reply brief to 10 pages”); Orthopaedic Hosp. v. Encore Med. L.P., 2021 WL 10 1966124, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 6, 2021) (same). Under the Court’s CMSO, briefs exceeding the 11 page limitation without leave of Court “may be stricken or not considered.” (Doc. No. 26 at 4). 12 A court may allow a sur-reply to be filed where there is a valid reason for such additional 13 briefing, such as to prevent unfair prejudice. Hill v. England, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 14 2005). District Courts have the inherent discretion to permit sur-replies. See U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. 15 Horizon Health Corp., 565 F. 3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that district court did not 16 abuse discretion in refusing to permit “inequitable surreply”); Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 17 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (providing the non-movant an opportunity to respond). 18 While Plaintiff did not comply with the page limits set by the CMSO, the undersigned finds 19 that striking Plaintiff’s brief would not serve the interests of justice. See Arya Risk Mgmt. Sys., Pvt. 20 Ltd. v. Dufossat Cap. Puerto Rico, LLC, 2022 WL 1644530, at *4 (S.D. Tex. May 24, 2022) (finding 21 that “striking [brief exceeding the page limit by 7 pages] would neither serve the interests of justice 22 nor expedite the resolution of this action” and denying motion to strike, finding no prejudice where 23 the responding party be permitted leave to exceed page limitation also). Permitting Select to file a 24 sur-reply will cure any prejudice from Plaintiff’s non-complaint filing and ensure the Court benefits 25 from full briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order. 26 //// 27 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 28 Select’s Motion for Administrative Relief (Doc. No. 51) is granted in part, to the extent 1 that Select may file a sur-reply not to exceed ten (10) pages. Select must file their sur- 2 reply no later than June 20, 2023. 3 “| Dated: _ June 13,2023 Wile. Lh fareh Hack 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28