Direct Marketing Association, The v. Huber

Filing 96

Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages For Cross Motions For Summary Judgment and Responses To Cross Motions by Defendant Roxy Huber. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Scoville, Stephanie)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01546-REB-CBS
THE DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROXY HUBER, in her capacity as Executive Director,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Defendant.
JOINT MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION FOR CROSS MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RESPONSES TO CROSS MOTIONS
The parties, by their respective undersigned counsel, respectfully move the Court
for leave to exceed the Court’s page limitation for motions for summary judgment and
the responses to those motions. As grounds therefore, the parties state as follows:
1.

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR. 7.1A, counsel for the parties conferred and

file this motion jointly seeking the relief requested herein.
2.

Plaintiff filed this suit challenging the constitutionality of a Colorado

statute, HB 10-1193 (the "Act"), and alleging various constitutional violations, including
two counts claiming that the statute and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act
violate the Commerce Clause.
3.

Pursuant to agreement of the parties as proposed to the Court in their

Joint Status Report and Proposed Order (Doc. #85) and subsequent Order Approving
Proposed Briefing Schedule on Counts I and II and Staying Proceedings on Counts III

Through VIII (Doc. #91), the parties will be submitting cross motions for summary
judgment on Counts I and II of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The Court’s Order also
provided that should the Court grant either motion for summary judgment, the Court
will enter an order stating that the order and judgment are appropriate for an
interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)..
3.

Pursuant to REB Civ. Practice Standard V.I.4., motions for summary

judgment and responses shall not exceed 20 pages.
4.

Plaintiff asserts two distinct challenges to the Act under the Commerce

Clause, one alleging discrimination and the other alleging improper and unduly
burdensome regulation of interstate commerce. Because Plaintiff’s Commerce Clause
challenges present complex issues, good cause exists for a finite extension of the
Court’s page limitations on motions for summary judgment and responses.
WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request an Order granting an extension of
the page limitation for their cross motions for summary judgment and their responses to
said motions up to and including 30 pages.
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of May 2011.

2

JOHN W. SUTHERS
Attorney General
s/ Matthew P. Schaefer
George S. Isaacson
Matthew P. Schaefer
BRANN & ISAACSON
184 Main Street, P.O. Box 3070
Lewiston ME 04243-3070
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

s/ Jack M. Wesoky
JACK M. WESOKY*
Senior Assistant Attorney General
MELANIE J. SNYDER*
Assistant Attorney General
Business and Licensing Section
Tel. [phone] (Wesoky)
[phone] (Snyder)
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
STEPHANIE LINDQUIST SCOVILLE*
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Civil Litigation and Employment Law Section
Tel. [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
*Counsel of Record
Attorneys for Defendant

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 3, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing JOINT
MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION FOR CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND RESPONSES TO CROSS MOTIONS with the Clerk of the Court
using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following eaddresses:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

s/ Jack M. Wesoky

4