Conservation Congress et al v. Finley et al

Filing 59

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti denying 47 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.(sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2012)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

CONSERVATION CONGRESS,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CENTER,

6

Plaintiffs,

7
v.
8

10
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

NANCY FINLEY, UNITED STATES FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, TYRONE
KELLEY, and UNITED STATES FOREST
SERVICE,

11
Defendants.

12

) Case No. 11-4752-SC
)
) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
) LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

13
Now before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Leave to File
14
Excess Pages.

ECF No. 47 ("Mot.").

For the reasons set forth

15
below, the Motion is DENIED.
16
On November 16, 2011, the Court set a briefing schedule in
17
this matter, providing that each party's summary judgment briefing
18
shall not exceed a total of seventy-five pages.

ECF No. 14

19
("Briefing Order").

Plaintiffs complied with the Briefing Order,

20
filing a forty-five-page motion on April 2, 2012 and a thirty-page
21
response on May 22, 2012.

ECF Nos. 37, 44.

Defendants have not

22
complied.

They filed a fifty-page cross-motion on May 11, 2012 and

23
a thirty-five-page response brief on May 31, 2012, exceeding their
24
page limit by ten pages.

ECF Nos. 41, 51.

About three hours

25
before Defendants filed their reply brief, they filed the Motion
26
for Leave to File Excess Pages.

Plaintiffs filed an opposition to

27
the Motion that same day.
28

ECF No. 52.

1

As Plaintiffs point out, Defendants' Motion is inconsistent

2

with Local Civil Rule 7-4(b), which requires that such motions be

3

filed "prior to the due date."

4

unfairly disadvantage Plaintiffs, who have complied with the

5

Court's Briefing Order.

6

Further, Defendants' actions could

Accordingly, Defendants' Motion is DENIED.

By June 6, 2012,

7

Defendants shall file a revised version of their reply brief which

8

complies with the page limits set forth in the Court's Briefing

9

Order.

If Defendants elect not to do so, the Court will review the

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

brief they filed on May 31, 2012, but will ignore the last ten

11

pages of that brief, i.e., that portion of the brief which exceeds

12

the page limits set forth in the Briefing Order.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: June 4, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2