Daugherty v. Hurst

Filing 166

ORDER GRANTING in part & DENYING in part Plf's 165 Motion for Leave to File a Consolidated Response & Brief in Excess of Page Limits as set out. Plf's motion is GRANTED as to her request to file a consolidated response, GRANTED in part i n that the consolidated response may exceed the 30 page limit but may not exceed 60 pages, & DENIED as to her request to file excess pages up to 100 pages as set out. Plf may elect to file a consolidated response, not to exceed 30 pages, or a consolidated response, not to exceed 60 pages. Signed by District Judge Terry F. Moorer on 10/30/19. (tot)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHUNTA DAUGHERTY, individually,
and as the administrator of the estate
of Michael Dashawn Moore,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HAROLD HURST, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-cv-72-TFM-C

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Shunta Daugherty’s Motion for Leave to File a
Consolidated Response and a Brief in Excess of Page Limits. Doc. 165, filed October 28, 2019.
Plaintiff requests the Court allow her to file a consolidated response to Defendants’ motions for
summary judgment and file a brief in excess of this judicial district’s page limits for motions. Id.
at 1. In support of Plaintiff’s request, she states there are two (2) pending motions for summary
judgment to which she must respond; Defendant City of Mobile incorporates in its motion for
summary judgment portions of Defendant Hurst’s motion for summary judgment; the events of
this matter occurred at multiple locations and on different dates and times; there is voluminous
discovery in this matter; and there are considerable facts in dispute. See id. ¶¶ 2-7, 9. Defendants’
counsel do not oppose Plaintiff’s request to consolidate her responses, but object to her request to
file excess pages. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff seeks up to 100 pages for her consolidated response and
attaches a draft statement of facts as an exemplar on the additional pages needed. See Doc. 1651.
The Court notes the facts stated in Defendants’ motions for summary judgment collectively
Page 1 of 2

total approximately fifteen (15) pages and neither motion exceeds this judicial district’s page limits
for motions. Compare Doc. 159 with Doc. 160; see S.D. Ala. CivLR 7(e). While the Court is
willing to give some degree of flexibility on the length of the consolidated response, 100 pages is
excessive. A review of the exhibit indicates there is a great deal of white space and a more efficient
layout will likely alleviate Plaintiff’s concerns. As such, the Court is willing to provide up to sixty
(60) pages.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Consolidated Response and a Brief in Excess of Page
Limits (Doc. 165) is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as discussed below.
(1) Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to her request to file a consolidated response to
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment,
(2) The motion GRANTED in part in that the consolidated response may exceed the
thirty (30) page limit but may not exceed sixty (60) pages.
(3) The motion is DENIED as to her request to file excess pages up to 100 pages.
Ultimately, Plaintiff may elect on whether to file an individual response, not to exceed thirty (30)
pages or a consolidated response not to exceed sixty (60) pages.
DONE and ORDERED this the 30th day of October 2019.
/s/ Terry F. Moorer
TERRY F. MOORER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2