Ravenswood City School District v. S. et al

Filing 79

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 77 Motion TO FILE OVERSIZED BRIEFS (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2011)

Download PDF
Ravenswood City School District v. S. et al Doc. 79 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION 5 RAVENSWOOD CITY SCHOOL Case No: C 10-03950 SBA ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO FILE OVERSIZED BRIEFS Docket 77 DISTRICT, 6 Plaintiff, 7 vs. 8 J.S., a minor, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The parties have filed a joint administrative motion for leave to file opening and opposition briefs that are forty-five pages in length and a twenty-page reply. Dkt. 77. This case is not sufficiently complex to warrant briefs of that length. Moreover, the parties should be aware that arguments presented in a direct and concise manner are generally more effective that those that are not. See Fleming v. County of Kane, State of Ill., 855 F.2d 496, 497 (7th Cir. 1988) ("Overly long briefs, however, may actually hurt a party's case, making it far more likely that meritorious arguments will be lost amid the mass of detail.") (quoting in part United States v. Keplinger, 776 F.2d 678, 683 (7th Cir. 1985)); Weilert v. Health Midwest Development Group, 95 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1192 (D. Kan. 2000) ("Judicial economy and concise argument are purposes of the page limit."). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties' joint motion for leave to file oversized briefs is DENIED. Both parties are directed to avoid the excessive use of footnotes as a means of circumscribing the page limits specified in Civil Local Rules 72(a), 7-3(a) and 7-3(c). This Order terminates Docket 77. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 28, 2010 _______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge Dockets.Justia.com

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?