Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 183

ORDER re #172 GRANTING defendant-intervenors' motion for leave to file their motion papers. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2009)

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 KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER, PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v ARNORLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as governor of California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in his official capacity as attorney general of California; MARK B HORTON, in his official capacity as director of the California Department of Public Health and state registrar of vital statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as deputy director of health information & strategic planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his official capacity as clerkrecorder of the County of Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his official capacity as registrarrecorder/county clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING WILLIAM TAM and MARK A JANSSON, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Defendant-Intervenors. / No C 09-2292 VRW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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 Doc #172.

Defendant-intervenors, the proponents of Proposition 8 ("proponents"), have applied for administrative leave to exceed page limitations in connection with their motion for summary judgment. Proponents filed their application on the last day

timely to serve and file their summary judgment motion and seek leave for a memorandum of 98 pages (117 pages with tables and index). Civ LR 7-2(b) limits such filings to 25 pages. Proponents invoke Civ LR 7-4(b), which applies to opposition, rather than motion, papers, implying that there is no page limitation for the latter papers. See Doc #172 at 4 n 1. Of

course, were this implication correct, there would be no need to seek leave to file an over-long memorandum. proponents no help. Civ LR 7-4(b) affords

Proponents next argue that the "momentous Doc

importance" of this case warrants an expanded page limitation. #172 at 3. True, the case is important.

Truer still, proponents'

memorandum is monumental. Plaintiffs and intervenor City and County of San Francisco oppose granting leave and suggest some compromise between the 25 page limitation and the nearly 100 pages submitted by proponents. See Doc ##174, 179. Rather than deny leave, the court

takes another approach and orders as follows: Proponents are GRANTED leave to file their motion papers. The motion will deemed filed on September 9, 2009; Plaintiffs and intervenor San Francisco are each GRANTED leave to file opposition papers that total not more than 98 pages apart from tables and indices (but are urged to resist the temptation to match proponents in this regard); \\ 2

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

All other parties may not exceed the page limitations of the local rules; and No party in this litigation may henceforth exceed the page limitations of the local rules except upon application made not less than five days prior to the date on which any pleading, motion, memorandum or other paper is due.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge

3