Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 140 Filed 11/20/24 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`ASHLEY M GJOVIK,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 23-cv-04597-EMC
`
`
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
`MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
`
`
`Docket No. 139
`
`
`
`Previously, the Court denied Apple’s motion for involuntary dismissal; however, it also
`
`sanctioned Ms. Gjovik by striking her fifth amended complaint (“5AC”) for failure to comply with
`
`Court orders. The Court gave Ms. Gjovik leave to file a new 5AC so long as it complied with the
`
`Court’s orders. Now pending before the Court is Ms. Gjovik’s motion for leave to file a motion to
`
`reconsider.
`
`The motion for leave is DENIED. Ms. Gjovik has failed to establish that she should be
`
`given leave pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b).
`
`Furthermore, even if the Court were to permit Ms. Gjovik to file her proposed motion to
`
`reconsider, it is not persuasive on the merits. For example, Ms. Gjovik argues that her formatting
`
`changes were not made in bad faith because Civil Local Rule 3-4(c) applies only to manual filings,
`
`not electronic filings. At best, Ms. Gjovik’s argument has merit with respect to her failure to use
`
`numbered lines.1 See Civ. L.R. 3-4(c)(1) (“Papers presented for manual filing must be on 8½ inch
`
`by 11 inch white paper with numbered lines . . . .”). However, the requirement of no more than 28
`
`
`1 To be clear, the Court did not take issue with Ms. Gjovik’s failure to use numbered lines per se.
`The problem was that Ms. Gjovik narrowed margins by dropping the use of numbered lines.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 140 Filed 11/20/24 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`lines per page is not so restricted. See Civ. L.R. 3-4(c)(2) (“Text must appear on one side only and
`
`must be double-spaced with no more than 28 lines per page . . . .”). Furthermore, under Ms.
`
`Gjovik’s position, page limits would be meaningless because formatting requirements in the Civil
`
`Local Rules could be entirely ignored for electronic filings. Cf. Wilson v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am.,
`
`No. 1:13-CV-470, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148277, at *2-3 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 17, 2014) (taking note
`
`of Local Rule imposing formatting requirements – e.g., spacing, font size, number of lines of text;
`
`“[t]he purposes of these requirements are obvious: to allow the Court to read the brief without
`
`undue eye strain or format distractions and to insure that litigants do not avoid page limits through
`
`creative but inappropriate font variation or spacing”).
`
`The Court also notes that Ms. Gjovik’s repeated complaints about a page limit on her
`
`pleading fall flat. It is not uncommon for courts to impose page limits, even for pleadings. See,
`
`e.g., Sullivan v. Graham, No. 23-3153, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 11968, at *9 (10th Cir. May 17,
`
`2024) (in case where pro se plaintiff claimed, e.g., conspiracy and fraud involving forty
`
`defendants, rejecting plaintiff’s challenge to imposition of 50-page limit on his amended
`
`complaint); Lewis v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 739 Fed. Appx. 585, 585-86 (11th Cir. 2018) (rejecting
`
`plaintiff’s contention that Local Rule limiting pro se civil rights complaints to 25 pages was
`
`unconstitutional as applied in his case); Lamon v. Ellis, 584 Fed. Appx. 514, 515 (9th Cir. 2014)
`
`(in pro se § 1983 case, holding that “district court’s page limitation was consistent with Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)”); Bittaker v. Rushen, No. 92-15375, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS
`
`28517, at *2-4 (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 1992) (in pro se case, affirming involuntary dismissal because
`
`plaintiff’s pleading exceeded the 40-page limit imposed by the district court and failed to comply
`
`with Rule 8); Martinez v. Parks, No. 1:21-cv-1496-ADA-CDB (PC), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`88558, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2023) (in pro se § 1983 case, reaffirming decision to limit
`
`plaintiff to a 25-page complaint); see also E.D. Tex. L.R. CV-3 (imposing 30-page limit on habeas
`
`petitions in non-death penalty cases and 100-page limit in death penalty cases); cf. Blakely v.
`
`Wells, 209 Fed. Appx. 18, 20 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that lower court “acted within the bounds of
`
`permissible discretion in dismissing the second amended complaint for noncompliance with Rule
`
`8(a); “[t]he pleading, which spanned 57 pages and contained 597 numbered paragraphs, was far
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 140 Filed 11/20/24 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`from short or plain”). As the Court has stated before, nothing about this case suggests that Ms.
`
`Gjovik should not be able to file a pleading in compliance with Rule 8 even if limited to 75 pages.
`
`Finally, the Court acknowledges that Ms. Gjovik has refiled a 5AC which, as a facial
`
`matter, is 75 pages. See Docket No. 138 (5AC). Ms. Gjovik indicates that this complaint is
`
`largely the same as the stricken 5AC; “most changes were merely abbreviations and slight
`
`rewording.” Docket No. 139-1 (Prop. Mot. at 2). The Court has not fully examined the new 5AC
`
`but notes that abbreviations include using: “Pl.” instead of “Gjovik”; “&” instead of “and”; “env.”
`
`instead of “environmental”; “gov.” instead of “government”; “discrim.” instead of
`
`“discrimination”; and “admin.” instead of “administrative.” Although the Court is not prejudging
`
`the matter, it advises Ms. Gjovik that it will not look favorably on the use of abbreviations if so
`
`extensive as to constitute an attempt to effect an end-run around page limitations. See, e.g.,
`
`Doubleday Acquisitions LLC v. Ab, No. 1:21-cv-03749-SCJ, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238573, at
`
`*15 (N.D. Ga. July 1, 2022) (ordering that “the parties shall use the default double spacing of
`
`Word or another word processing program and shall not use exact spacing or other technical
`
`workarounds to avoid the letter and spirit of this District's formatting requirements and page
`
`limitations”) (emphasis added). Thus, the Court reiterates for Ms. Gjovik’s benefit that she has
`
`until November 26, 2024, to file a 5AC that complies with the Court’s orders.
`
`This order disposes of Docket No. 139.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 20, 2024
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`
`EDWARD M. CHEN
`United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`