Page 1
ROBERTA L. STEELE, SBN 188198 (CA) MARCIA L. MITCHELL, SBN 18122 (WA) JAMES H. BAKER JR, SBN 291836 (CA) KENA C. CADOR, SBN 321094 (CA) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 450 Golden Gate Ave., 5th Floor West P.O. Box 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone No. (650) 684-0950 Fax No. (415) 522-3425 james.baker@eeoc.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TESLA, INC.
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC PLAINTIFF EEOC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT TESLA, INC’S STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISIONS AND REQUEST TO STRIKE Judge: Hon. Jacqueline S. Corley Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor Hearing Date: March 28, 2024 Time: 10:00 a.m.
On March 11, 2024, Defendant Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) filed a Statement of Recent Decisions
Authority in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Stay All Proceedings (Statement of Recent
Decisions) (Dkt. No. 39). Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
opposes the Statement of Recent Decisions, which violates Local Rules, and respectfully asks that it
be stricken and disregarded by the Court in ruling on Tesla’s pending Motion to Stay All
Proceedings (Dkt. No. 22).
///
///
///
EEOC’S OPP. TO STATEMENT OF OF RECENT DECISIONS
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Local Rule 7-3 states, “[o]nce a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval,” except that,
Before the noticed hearing date, counsel may bring to the Court’s attention a relevant judicial opinion published after the date the opposition or reply was filed by filing and serving a Statement of Recent Decision. Such Statement shall contain a citation to and provide a copy of the new opinion without argument.
Civil Local Rule 7-3(d) (emphasis added). Tesla improperly includes in its Statement of Recent
Decisions unauthorized argument about what the noticed decisions purportedly contain, further
unauthorized argument regarding the alleged relevance of the decisions in this case, and a quote
from one of the decisions. See Dkt. No. 39, at 3. Telsa’s argument violates Local Rule 7-3 and
should be stricken as unauthorized briefing. See McArdle v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. C09-1117
CW, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73519, 2010 WL 2867305, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2010) (Wilken, J.)
(“Plaintiff’s three-page submission, which contained argument, constitutes unauthorized briefing . . .
Accordingly, the Court strikes Plaintiff’s submission from the record.”); see also Innovative Sports
Mgmt., Inc. v. Robles, No. 13-CV-00660-LHK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5495, 2014 WL 129308, at
*1, n.2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014) (“The Court strikes the first four paragraphs of the declaration
accompanying the statement of recent decisions as those paragraphs contain improper argument on
the instant motion.”).
///
///
///
EEOC’S OPP. TO STATEMENT OF
OF RECENT DECISIONS
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 3
For these reasons, Tesla’s Statement of Recent Decisions violates Local Rules and should be
stricken from the record.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: March 19, 2024
ROBERTA STEELE
Regional Attorney
KARLA GILBRIDE
General Counsel
MARCIA L. MITCHELL
Assistant Regional Trial Attorney
CHRISTOPHER LAGE
Deputy General Counsel
JAMES H. BAKER
Senior Trial Attorney
Office of the General Counsel 131 M Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20507
KENA C. CADOR
Trial Attorney
BY:
/s/ James H. Baker James H. Baker U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 450 Golden Gate Ave., 5th Floor West P.O. Box 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone (650) 684-0950 james.baker@eeoc.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC
EEOC’S OPP. TO STATEMENT OF OF RECENT DECISIONS
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Back to 
