HARGROVE v. COLVIN

Filing 16

ENTRY ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERSIZE BRIEF - Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Oversize Brief (Filing No. 15 ) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Plaintiff's 45 page limit brief is due by December 28, 2016 and the response and reply deadlines are extended accordingly. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/9/2016. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JOSHUA HARGROVE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-01922-TWP-MJD

ENTRY ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERSIZE BRIEF
On December 8, 2016, Plaintiff Joshua Hargrove, by counsel, filed a request for leave to
file a 62 page brief in support of his Complaint requesting review and remand of the Commissioner
of Social Security Administration’s Final Decision. (Filing No. 15.) In support of his request,
Plaintiff states that the Administrative Record is extensive, his claim for disability is premised on
both his physical and psychological conditions, the review of this case is fact sensitive and there
are multiple, substantive errors in the ALJ’s Decision. For the reasons stated herein, the motion
is granted in part and denied in part.
Rule Local Rule 7.1(e) states that no brief or response may exceed 35 pages (excluding
tables of contents, tables of authorities, appendices, and certificates of service) without permission
of the court to exceed the page limit. The standard for allowing an oversized brief is for
compelling and extraordinary reasons. See Local Rule 7-1(e). Plaintiff has not established such
reasons. 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. Nor are Plaintiff’s claims so
complex and extraordinary that 62 pages of briefing is warranted.
Local Rule 7-1(e) 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 decision-making; it allows the parties and
the reviewing court to see the big picture and not to be misled by fragmentation; it
saves resources for all concerned.
Beverly California Corp. v. NLRB, 227 F.3d 817, 829 (7th Cir. 2000). As in Beverly, counsel is
“apparently under the misapprehension that more is always better when it comes to briefing.” Id. 1
Unfortunately, “more” has produced briefing which is tedious to read, and unnecessarily lengthy.
The Court recognizes that this motion is unopposed, however, concise briefing is essential to the
Court’s efficient management of its heavy caseload.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Oversize Brief (Filing No. 15) is
DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Plaintiff’s 45 page limit brief is due by December
28, 2016 and the response and reply deadlines are extended accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

Date: 12/9/2016

DISTRIBUTION:
Adriana M. de la Torre
THE DE LA TORRE LAW OFFICE LLC
[e-mail]
Kathryn Olivier
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
[e-mail]

1

The Court notes that counsel recently made a similar request in another case, Stanley v. Colvin (1-16-cv-1129-TWPMJD).

2