Asset Vision, LLC et al v. Fielding et al

Filing 45

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitations 42 is GRANTED in part as explained above. Plaintiffs' Motion to Shorten Time 43 is DEEMED MOOT. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

ASSET VISION, LLC, an Idaho limited
liability company, and DEER VALLEY
TRUCKING INC., an Idaho corporation,

Case No. 4:13-cv-00288-BLW
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
CREG FIELDING, an individual, BRAD
HALL, an individual, COLE HALL, an
individual, and BRAD HALL &
ASSOCIATES, INC., an Idaho
corporation,
Defendants.

The Court has before Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitations
(Dkt. 42), and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Shorten Time (Dkt. 43). The Court will grant the first
motion in part and deem moot the second as explained below.
With respect to the first motion, this Court rarely grants motions for leave to
exceed page limitations – and when it does, it typically allows only an extra page or two.
Here, a cursory review of the proposed overlength brief shows that a few extra pages may
be necessary. On preliminary injunction, the Court is often without the factual
background of the case to fully comprehend the issues presented – especially in the more
complicated matters. Thus, although the Court does not necessarily find this case overly
complicated, it appears the somewhat lengthy background portion of the brief may at least

give the Court some important factual information. But the Court does not agree with
Plaintiffs’ argument that the Court should allow an overlength brief in line with the page
allocations for a summary judgment brief and statement of facts. Instead, the Court will
grant the Plaintiffs 5 extra pages. In turn, Defendants may file a 25-page brief in response
to the motion. Plaintiffs may file only a 10-page reply, since the recitation of facts will
not be necessary in that brief.
As for the motion to shorten time, Defendants have already responded to the
motion for excess pages. Accordingly, the motion to shorten time is moot.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitations (Dkt. 42) is
GRANTED in part as explained above.

2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Shorten Time (Dkt. 43) is DEEMED MOOT.

DATED: December 4, 2013

B. LYNN WINMILL
Chief U.S. District Court Judge