WASHINGTON FRONTIER LEAGUE BASEBALL, LLC et al v. ZIMMERMAN et al

Filing 211

ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERSIZED BRIEF - 208 Motion for Leave to File is granted in part and denied in part. The Court STRIKES Plaintiffs' response at Filing No. 209 . Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an oversized response b rief not to exceed forty-five (45) pages (not including the caption, index, and service page) no later than Thursday, September 21, 2017. Defendants' reply deadline is adjusted accordingly. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/7/2017. (MEJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
WASHINGTON FRONTIER LEAGUE
BASEBALL, LLC, and
STUART A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL E. ZIMMERMAN,
FRONTIER PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-cv-01862-TWP-DML

ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERSIZED BRIEF
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Washington Frontier League Baseball, LLC
and Stuart A. Williams’s Motion for Leave to File an Oversized Response Brief in Opposition to
the Frontier League’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Derivative Claims (Filing No. 208).
On June 3, 2017, Defendant Frontier Professional Baseball, Inc. filed its Motion for
Summary Judgment on the Plaintiffs’ derivative claims. Frontier’s summary judgment brief is
thirteen pages (only eleven pages for the content of the brief) with two exhibits totaling twentyseven pages (Filing No. 177). The summary judgment motion raises arguments concerning: (1)
choice of law between Ohio and Indiana, (2) the business judgment rule, and (3) a claim for civil
conspiracy to breach fiduciary duties or aiding and abetting in breach of fiduciary duties.
Plaintiffs request leave to file an oversized brief, asserting that they had to “contend with
the testimony from nine witnesses and approximately 239 exhibits as well as thousands of pages
of documents that have been produced.” (Filing No. 208 at 1–2.) Plaintiffs also assert that the
docket has more than two hundred entries, which highlights the extent of the parties’ dispute.

Plaintiffs argue that the issues raised in the summary judgment motion are fact intensive with
independent legal standards and elements, thus requiring an oversized response brief. Plaintiffs’
proposed response to Frontier’s summary judgment motion consists of a 63-page brief (not
including the caption, index, and service page) (Filing No. 209) and nearly eighty exhibits totaling
more than 650 pages (Filing No. 203; Filing No. 204).
The local rules of this district provide that supporting and response briefs (excluding tables
of contents, tables of authorities, appendices, and certificates of service) may not exceed 35 pages.
Reply briefs may not exceed 20 pages. However, the court may allow a party to file a brief
exceeding these page limits for extraordinary and compelling reasons. See Local Rule 7-1(1) and
(2). This rule is important as page limits on briefs are imposed to maintain judicial efficiency and
to invoke fairness to opposing parties. The pressure of a large complex proceeding puts a premium
on good organization and efficient use of time and space, but that is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Consolidation allows for consistency in decisionmaking; it allows the parties and the reviewing
court to see the big picture and not to be misled by fragmentation; and it saves resources for all
concerned. See Beverly California Corp v NLRB, 227 F.3d 817, 829 (7th Cir. 2000). Moreover,
oversized briefing is often tedious to read and unnecessarily lengthy.
The Court has skimmed through the docket in this matter and concludes that the record,
while extensive, is not unusual for these types of proceedings. Upon review of the parties’
summary judgment filings, the Court determines that the issues raised in Frontier’s summary
judgment motion are discreet and concise and not so overly complex to require such a voluminous
response from Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Leave to File an Oversized Response Brief (Filing No. 208). The Court STRIKES Plaintiffs’
response at Filing No. 209. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an oversized response brief not to

2

exceed forty-five (45) pages (not including the caption, index, and service page) no later than
Thursday, September 21, 2017. Defendants’ reply deadline is adjusted accordingly.
SO ORDERED.

Date:

9/7/2017

Distribution:

Jacques C. Condon
CONDON LAW FIRM LLC
[e-mail]

Andrew M. McNeil
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP
[e-mail]

Jay Jaffe
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
[e-mail]

Kevin L. Murphy
KEVIN L. MURPHY PLLC
[e-mail]

Bernie W. (Too) Keller
KELLER MACALUSO LLC
[e-mail]

Eric J. Neidlinger
KELLER MACALUSCO LLC
[e-mail]

Joseph Jeffrey Landen
MURPHY LANDEN JONES PLLC
[e-mail]

Mark Wohlford
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP
[e-mail]
Philip R. Zimmerly
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS, LLP
[e-mail]

3