Taylor v. Pool Corporation et al

Filing 106

ORDER granting 99 Defendant's Motion to Strike re 95 Response in Opposition to Motion; denying 101 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and granting 102 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time, Defendant shall file a reply by 5/8/09. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/13/09.(LSP)

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

Billy Taylor, Plaintiff, vs. Horizon Distributors, Inc., Defendant.

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

No. CV-07-1984-PHX-DGC ORDER

Defendant has filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's memorandum of law in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Dkt. #99. As part of this motion, Defendant requests reasonable attorneys' fees. Id. Plaintiff has responded to the motion to strike (Dkt. #100) and filed a motion to allow Plaintiff an extension of the page limit. Dkt. #101. Defendant has also filed a motion for an extension of time to file a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment. Dkt. #102. Local Rule 7.2(e) states that a response brief "shall not exceed seventeen (17) pages." L.R. Civ. 7.2(e). Plaintiff has filed a 67-page response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Dkt. #95. Because Plaintiff's response blatantly violates the Court's rules and far surpasses the number of pages warranted for this response, the Court will grant Defendant's motion to strike. Plaintiff shall file an amended response that complies with the rules on or before April 24, 2009. The Court notes that Plaintiff has already been granted two extensions of time to file this response. Dkt. ## 91, 94. Plaintiff is advised to comply with

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

the above deadline because the Court will not be inclined to grant another extension. The Court will deny Defendant's request for attorneys' fees. Defendant's counsel called the Court's staff on April 10, 2009 to inquire whether Defendant's motion for an extension of time to file a reply would be granted. The Court's staff informed counsel that an extension would be granted. Defendant shall file a reply to Plaintiff's amended response by May 8, 2009. IT IS ORDERED: 1. 2. 3. Defendant's motion to strike (Dkt. #99) is granted as set forth in this order. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of the page limit (Dkt. #101) is denied. Plaintiff shall file an amended response that complies with the page limit by April 24, 2009. 4. Defendant's motion for extension of time (Dkt. #102) is granted. Defendant shall file a reply by May 8, 2009. DATED this 13th day of April, 2009.

-2-