United States of America v. Federal Resources Corporation

Filing 255

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. The motion to strike (docket no. #244 ) is DENIED. The defendants shall send to law clerk a proposal for a schedule for response briefs and a notice as to whether they seek an extension of the hearing date of February 25, 2014. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (jp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:11-CV-127-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

FEDERAL RESOURCES CORPORATION,
BLUM REAL ESTATE TRUST; and
BENTLEY J. BLUM in his capacity
as Trustee of the Blum Real Estate Trust
Defendants.

The Court has before it defendants’ motion to strike three motions for summary
judgment filed by the Government. The defendants allege that the motions were filed in
violation of the Court’s Order of August 22, 2011.
In that Order, the Court (1) limited counsel to a single motion for summary
judgment and (2) required a motion to extend the page limit of 20 pages if the issues were
complex. In violation of that Order, the Government filed four separate motions for
summary judgment totaling 70 pages of briefing without filing any motion to extend the
page limits. When defense counsel called the Government’s counsel to point out this
violation and ask that three of the briefs be withdrawn, the Government’s counsel
refused. Defense counsel responded with this motion, seeking to strike three of the four
briefs.
Counsel for the Government responds that he filed the motions because he “failed
to recall the preference for one consolidated motion . . . .” See Response Brief (Dkt. No.

245) at 2. Among other arguments, Government counsel now seeks an extension of the
page limits arguing that these separate issues each require in-depth treatment.
CERCLA cases like this one are complicated. The issues raised in the three
challenged motions are separate and there is no redundancy in the Government’s briefing.
It would appear that all along, the Government has been entitled to a page extension that
would cover the extra briefs. Thus, the Court finds credible Government counsel’s
allegation that his filing of the extra motions was an oversight and not an attempt to
evade the 20-page limit.
The Court is troubled by the fact that defendant was forced to file this motion to
strike due to the Government’s oversight. But essentially the same challenge would have
been made to a motion for page extension, and so the work was going to be done one way
or the other.
The Court will admonish the Government’s counsel to more carefully read the
Court’s Orders. Moreover, the defendants must now respond to many extra pages of
material, and the hearing is set for February 25, 2014. The Court will allow counsel for
defendants to propose a schedule for responding to each brief, and to advise the Court
whether the hearing date needs to be moved. The Court will not allow the Government’s
counsel to respond.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to strike
(docket no. 244) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the defendants shall send to law clerk Dave
Metcalf ([e-mail]) a proposal for a schedule for response briefs
and a notice as to whether they seek an extension of the hearing date of February 25,
2014.

DATED: January 9, 2014

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court