Keane et al v. McMullen et al

Filing 159

ORDER STRIKING 153 Opposition/Response to Motion filed by Robert Carl Patrick Keane, Chieko Strange, 151 Third MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Seth M. McMullen, 156 Reply to Opposition/Response filed by John Silva, 155 R eply to Opposition/Response filed by Seth M. McMullen, 154 Opposition/Response to Motion filed by Robert Carl Patrick Keane, Chieko Strange, 152 Third MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by John Silva, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 153 Opposition/Response to Motion, 151 Third MOTION for Summary Judgment , 156 Reply to Opposition/Response, 155 Reply to Opposition/Response, 154 Opposition/Response to Motion, 152 Third MOTION for Summary Judgment . Case Management Conference set for 7/25/2012 02:45 PM.VIA TELEPHONE. Motion due by 5/29/12. Responses due by 6/12/2012. Replies due by 6/19/2012. Motion Hearing set for 7/10/2012 01:00 PM before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 5/14/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

OAKLAND DIVISION

9
10 ROBERT CARL PATRICK KEANE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

11
12

vs.

Case No: C 07-04894 SBA
ORDER STRIKING IMPROPERLYFILED MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

13 SETH M. MCMULLEN, et al.,

Defendants.

14
15
16

Throughout this action, Defendants Seth McMullen and John Silva (collectively

17

“Federal Defendants”) have been represented by the Office of the United States Attorney,

18

which has submitted all filings in this action jointly on behalf of Federal Defendants.1 On

19

April 17, 2012, Federal Defendants filed two separate motions for summary judgment—

20

one on behalf of McMullen and the other on behalf of Silva— collectively totaling 42

21

pages of briefing. In doing so, it is apparent that Federal Defendants are attempting to

22

circumvent Civil Local Rules, which limits motions to 25 pages in length. Civ. L.R. 7-2(b).

23

Federal Defendants’ motions, therefore, will be stricken from the record. See Swanson v.

24

U.S. Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir. 1996) (courts have discretion to strike

25

oversized briefs).

26
27
1

28

Paul Accornero also was included among the Federal Defendants; however,
Plaintiffs have dismissed him as a party. Dkt. 148.

1

Notwithstanding Federal Defendants’ violation of the Court’s Local Rules, the Court

2

will allow them an opportunity to file a single summary judgment motion, which conforms

3

in all respects to the applicable rules of procedure. See Smith v. Frank, 923 F.2d 139, 142

4

(9th Cir. 1991) (“Pleadings which are timely filed, but overly long under the local rules

5

should not be rejected without a reasonable, even if conditional opportunity to conform the

6

local rules.”). The parties should endeavor to keep their arguments concise and to the

7

point. “[I]t is typically the shorter briefs that are the most helpful, perhaps because the

8

discipline of compression forces the parties to explain clearly and succinctly what has

9

happened, the precise legal issue, and just why they believe the law supports them.” In re

10

M.S.V., Inc., 892 F.2d 5, 6 (1st Cir. 1989) (noting that briefs exceeding the normal page

11

limits are disfavored); see also Fleming v. County of Kane, State of Ill., 855 F.2d 496, 497

12

(7th Cir. 1988) (“Overly long briefs, however, may actually hurt a party’s case, making it

13

‘far more likely that meritorious arguments will be lost amid the mass of detail.’”) (citation

14

omitted).

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

16

1.

The motion papers filed in connection with Federal Defendants’ two improper

17

motions for summary judgment are stricken from the record. The Clerk shall strike Docket

18

151, 152, 153, 154, 155 and 156.

19

2.

Federal Defendants shall have until May 29, 2012 to file a renewed, single

20

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ opposition thereto shall be filed by no later than

21

June 12, 2012. Federal Defendants shall file their reply by June 19, 2012. The moving and

22

opposition papers shall be limited to 20 pages, and the reply is limited to 12 pages. The

23

parties are warned that further transgressions of any applicable procedural rule or Order of

24

this Court may result in the imposition of sanctions against counsel or the parties, or both.

25

3.

The hearing on Federal Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

26

CONTINUED from May 22, 2012, to July 10, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. Pursuant to Federal Rule

27

of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court, in its discretion, may

28
-2-

1

resolve the motion without oral argument. The parties are advised to check the Court’s

2

website to determine whether a court appearance is required.

3

4.

The parties shall appear for a telephonic Case Management Conference on

4

July 25, 2012 at 2:45 p.m. Prior to the date scheduled for the conference, the parties shall

5

meet and confer and prepare a joint Case Management Conference Statement which

6

complies with the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California and

7

the Standing Orders of this Court. Plaintiffs shall assume responsibility for filing the joint

8

statement no less than seven (7) days prior to the conference date. Plaintiffs’ counsel is to

9

set up the conference call with all the parties on the line and call chambers at (510) 637-

10

3559. NO PARTY SHALL CONTACT CHAMBERS DIRECTLY WITHOUT PRIOR

11

AUTHORIZATION OF THE COURT.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 14, 2012

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-