George et al v. Sonoma County Sherrif's Department et al

Filing 384

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITIONS TO THE COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on August 31, 2010. (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2010)

George et al v. Sonoma County Sherrif's Department et al

Doc. 384

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT., et al., Defendants. / VALERIE GEORGE, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C-08-02675 EDL ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITIONS TO THE COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On August 27, 2010, the County Defendants filed an Ex Parte Application for Administrative Relief and Approval to File Reply Briefs in Excess of 15 Pages, arguing that Plaintiffs' two briefs filed in opposition to the County Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment violate Local Rule 34(c)(2) because the briefs contain a small font size and because large portions of the brief are single spaced. Therefore, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have violated Local Rule 7-4(b), which limits opposition briefs to 25 pages of text. The Court has examined Plaintiffs' opposition briefs, and has found that Plaintiffs included numerous pages of single-spaced text and used a 10-point font for numerous pages of footnote text. Accounting for the various font sizes and line spacing, the Court conservatively estimates Plaintiffs' opposition briefs to be 39 and 47 pages long. Plaintiffs did not seek leave to file briefs in excess of the 25 page limit for opposition briefs. Plaintiffs contend that they believed that the stipulation granting leave to the County Defendants to file opening summary judgment briefs of up to 35 pages each was reciprocal. Thus, Plaintiffs argue that they believed that they could file opposition briefs of up to 35 pages each. The stipulation, however, clearly states that leave was sought for the County Defendants only. See Docket No. 327. However, even if the stipulation had provided leave to Plaintiffs to file opposition briefs of up to 35 pages, Plaintiffs have not stayed within that limit. The Court is not persuaded that

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the Local Rules regarding font size and line spacing was inadvertent. However, the Court declines to impose the harsh remedy of striking Plaintiffs' opposition briefs as sought by the County Defendants. Instead, the Court orders that Plaintiffs are prohibited from filing briefs with footnotes in this Court in the future, and shall ensure that all court filings are written in 12-point Times New Roman text. Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions, including, but not limited to, striking a non-compliant brief. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 31, 2010 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge

2