Duarte Nursery Inc. et al v. United States Army Corps of Engineers et al

Filing 106

STIPULATION and ORDER 102 allowing Duarte Nursery and United States to file 3 Motions for Summary Judgment by 10/23/2015 signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/16/2015. Here, the Court is prepared to accept parties' representation that thre e separate Briefs will allow for more clear presentation of issues and separate briefing is not a method by which to avoid Court's limitation on page-length. At the same time, Court is not persuaded that parties require additional pages, over and above what is allowed for anyone Brief. Thus, for each Brief up to a total of three briefs, Courts standing order "plac[ing] a page limit for Dispositive Motions of 20 pages on all initial moving papers," REMAIN IN EFFECT. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

DUARTE NURSERY, INC.; and JOHN
DUARTE,
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER
v.

14
15
16

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS; and UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendant.

17
18

No. 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DAD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

19

Counterclaim-Plaintiff,

20
21
22
23
24

v.
DUARTE NURSERY, INC.; and JOHN
DUARTE,
Counterclaim-Defendants.

25
26
27

The parties to this action stipulate and jointly move the court to allow Duarte and
the United States to each file up to three motions for summary judgment by October 23, 2015.

28
1

1

ECF No. 102. The parties also request that the court increase the page limits of the combined

2

total of all moving papers for each side to sixty-five (65) pages, the combined total of all

3

oppositions to sixty-five (65) pages, and the combined total of all replies to thirty-two (32) pages,

4

if each motion is filed separately. The parties also request that if the court prefers the parties file

5

all three motions together in one filing then the page limits should be such that each side’s

6

moving paper be limited to sixty (60) pages; each side’s opposition be limited to sixty (60) pages;

7

and each side’s reply be limited to thirty (30) pages. Id.

8
9

“The court’s caseload is substantial and judicial resources are limited.” Whitsitt v.
Vinotheque Wine Cellars, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59997, at *4, 2007 WL 2288128 (E.D. Cal.

10

Aug. 7, 2007). Every paper filed with the court requires some portion of the institution’s limited

11

resources. In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989). It is the court’s responsibility to see that

12

the resources are allocated in a way that “promotes the interest of justice.” Id. “District courts

13

have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions, including dismissal [or

14

default], in the exercise of that discretion.” Olivia v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992);

15

see also Thompson v. Hous. Auth. Of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting the

16

Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly upheld the imposition of the sanction of dismissal [or default] for

17

failure to comply with pretrial procedures mandated by local rules and court orders”).

18

Here, the court is prepared to accept the parties’ representation that three separate

19

briefs will allow for a more clear presentation of issues and that separate briefing is not a method

20

by which to avoid the court’s limitation on page-length. At the same time, the court is not

21

persuaded that the parties require additional pages, over and above what the court allows for any

22

one brief. Thus, for each brief up to a total of three briefs, the court’s standing order “plac[ing] a

23

page limit for dispositive motions of twenty (20) pages on all initial moving papers,” remains in

24

effect.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 16, 2015.

27
28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2