General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley et al

Filing 101

ORDER. Defendants' 96 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment is denied. General Steel's 98 Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limitation for its Summary Judgment Briefs and Reply Briefs is granted. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 10/20/11.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01398-PAB-KLM
GENERAL STEEL DOMESTIC SALES, LLC,
d/b/a General Steel Corporation, a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
ETHAN DANIEL CHUMLEY, individually, and
ATLANTIC BUILDING SYSTEMS, LLC, a Delaware corporation,
doing business as Armstrong Steel Corporation,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motions
for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 96] for failure to comply with Section III.F.3.a of
this Court’s Practice Standards and plaintiff General Steel’s Motion for Leave to Exceed
the Page Limitation for its Summary Judgment Briefs and Reply Briefs [Docket No. 98].
The Court’s Practice Standards impose a twenty-page limitation on summary
judgment motions. See Practice Standards (Civil cases), Judge Philip A. Brimmer
§ III.F.3.a. On October 3, 2011, plaintiff/counter defendant General Steel Domestic
Sales, LLC (“General Steel”) filed a motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 88] and
brief in support [Docket No. 89] with a combined length exceeding twenty pages. The
Court therefore struck [Docket No. 92] those filings and granted General Steel leave to
file a complying motion. See Practice Standards (Civil cases), Judge Philip A. Brimmer

§ III.F.3.b.ix. (“Failure to follow these procedures will result in an order striking or
denying the motion or brief, and it will have to be re-submitted.”). General Steel re-filed
a twenty-page motion for summary judgment on October 4, 2011 [Docket No. 93].
In their motion to strike, defendants bring to the Court’s attention that General
Steel filed an additional ten-page motion for partial summary judgment on October 3,
2011 [Docket No. 90]. The Court’s Practice Standards provide that, “[i]f a party elects
to file more than one Rule 56 motion, then the motions . . . shall not exceed twenty
pages total for all such motions (not each such motion) filed by that party.” Practice
Standards (Civil cases), Judge Philip A. Brimmer § III.F.3.a. Therefore, General Steel’s
two pending motions for summary judgment violate this page limitation.
General Steel seeks leave to exceed the Court’s page limitations, explaining why
it has filed two separate motions for summary judgment. See Docket No. 98 at 3; see
also Docket No. 97 at 3. Although General Steel has not specifically articulated why it
requires more than a combined twenty pages for the two motions, and although its
plaintiff-versus-counterclaim defendant theory is unpersuasive, the Court finds that
permitting General Steel to exceed the page limitations by ten pages and to file two
separate ten-page replies is justified here. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary
Judgment [Docket No. 96] is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that General Steel’s Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limitation
for its Summary Judgment Briefs and Reply Briefs [Docket No. 98] is GRANTED.

2

DATED October 20, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

3