The Weitz Company, LLC v. Transportation Insurance Company, et al

Filing 52

MINUTE ORDER denying 49 Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying 50 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/21/2016.(cmira) Modified on 3/21/2016 to remove reference to signature (cmira).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. Case 15-cv-01493-REB-MEH
THE WEITZ COMPANY, LLC, an Iowa limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY, and
AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER1

The matter before the court is plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of
Page Limits for Summary Judgment Motion [#50],2 filed March 18, 2016. I deny the
motion without prejudice. On the surface, plaintiff appears to present a reasonable
explanation for the requested extension of the court’s practice standards imposing page
limits on summary judgment motions. On closer examination, however, the court is not
convinced that good cause has been shown for an extension of the magnitude
requested here.3
Concurrently with the filing of this motion, plaintiff has filed The Weitz Company,
LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#49], filed March 18, 2016. At 40 pages in
length, that motion is twice as long as generally permitted by the court’s Civil Practice
Standards. See REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.B.2. Moreover, if the motion had been
presented in Arial 12 point font as further required by the court’s practice standards
(see REB Civ. Practice Standard II.E.1), the court strongly suspects that the motion
would have been even longer. Finally, even a cursory overview of the first 20 pages of
1

This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E.
Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado.
2

“[#50]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
3

Opposing counsel’s lack of opposition is immaterial to the court’s consideration of whether
plaintiff has established good cause for the requested extension. See REB Civ. Practice Standard
II.G.3.

the motion (which comprise the factual statement of the brief) reveals that plaintiff has,
for example, quoted lengthy passages of exhibits appended to the motion, an editorial
decision that strikes the court as unnecessary when the original documents are
available for (and regardless of citation in the brief, will require) the court’s own perusal.
Given all these considerations, the court is left with the firm conviction that
plaintiff has made no real effort to attempt to conform its brief to the reasonable page
limitations imposed by the court’s practice standards. Plaintiff must make such a good
faith attempt – complying with all of the court’s practice standards applicable to the
submission of such motions – before any request to exceed the page limitations will be
considered.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Page Limits for
Summary Judgment Motion [#50], filed March 18, 2016, is denied without prejudice;
and
2. That The Weitz Company, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#49],
filed March 18, 2016, is denied without prejudice.
Dated: March 21, 2016

2