Farier v. Mesa, City of

Filing 102

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Dft's 92 Motion for Extension of page limitation for its motion for summary judgment. Dft shall, by 02/06/09, file a revised motion for summary judgment not to exceed 15 pages and 40 discrete material facts. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 01/28/09.(ESL)

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anthony Farier, Plaintiff, vs. City of Mesa, a municipal corporation, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-07-1407-PHX-DGC ORDER

Defendant has filed a motion for extension of page limitation for its motion for summary judgment. Dkt. #92. The Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part. Rule 7.2 of the Court's Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "a motion including its supporting memorandum . . . shall not exceed seventeen (17) pages[.]" LRCiv 7.2(e). Defendant's proposed motion for summary judgment exceeds the 17-page limit by more than 20 pages. Dkt. #95. The motion includes 10 pages on the background section for the failure-to-promote claim and another 10 pages for the retaliation claim. Id. The law and argument section does not even begin until page 23 ­ 6 pages beyond the limit of 17. Id. The Court finds that the proposed motion is unnecessarily excessive. The Court further finds that Defendant's proposed statement of facts is too long. That document is 43 pages and includes a whopping 413 separate paragraphs (spanning Dkt. ##96-99). Under Local Rule 56.1(a), only material facts shall be included in a statement of facts. Facts that are irrelevant or unnecessary to the disposition of the motion for summary

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

judgment are not material. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). Defendant shall, by February 6, 2009, file a revised motion for summary judgment not to exceed 20 pages and a revised statement of facts not to exceed 15 pages and 40 discrete material facts. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's motion for extension of page limitation for its motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #92) is granted in part and denied in part. 2. Defendant shall, by February 6, 2009, file a revised motion for summary judgment not to exceed 20 pages and a revised statement of facts not to exceed 15 pages and 40 discrete material facts. DATED this 28th day of January, 2009.

-2-