In Re: RFC and RESCAP Liquidating Trust Litigation

Filing 3408

ORDER regarding the parties' letters [Doc. Nos. 3405; 3407] concerning use of particular typeface (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 4/12/2018. (MJC) cc: Susannah S. Geltman. Modified text on 4/13/2018 (MMP).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

In Re: RFC and RESCAP Liquidating
Trust Actions

Civil File No. 13-3451 (SRN/HB)

ORDER

Order Regarding Typeface
________________________________________________________________________
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
Before the Court are the parties’ letters concerning Defendants’ use of the
Garamond font in their summary judgment and Daubert opening briefs. (See Pls.’ April
10, 2018 Letter [Doc. No. 3405]; Defs.’ April 10, 2018 Letter [Doc. No. 3407].) Plaintiffs
contend that by using the Garamond typeface instead of Times New Roman, Defendants
obtained the equivalent of a 10-page extension of the page limit for opening briefs. (Pls.’
Letter at 1.) They request that Defendants refile their opening briefs, using Times New
Roman font, and adhere to the Court’s page limitations. (Id. at 1–2.) Alternatively, they
seek a 20-page enlargement of the total number of Times New Roman pages that they may
file, to be used in their forthcoming opposition and reply briefs. (Id. at 2.)
Defendants, however, argue that their use of the Garamond typeface does not
violate the Local Rules or orders of this Court. (Defs.’ April 10, 2018 Letter at 1–2.)
They suggest that Plaintiffs refile their own briefs in Garamond font, or any other 13-point
proportional typeface of Plaintiffs’ choosing. (Id. at 2.) Alternatively, Defendants do not
1

object to a modest extension of Plaintiffs’ page limits in their forthcoming briefs, but argue
that a 20-page extension is “plainly disproportionate.” (Id. at 2.)
Granted, the Local Rules do not specify the use of a particular typeface, although
they proscribe the use of 13-point type size. See L.R. 7.1. Thus, Defendants have not
violated any rule or order of the Court. However, throughout this litigation, the Court has
afforded the parties equal opportunities to present their respective positions. By using a
smaller font, Defendants obtained an advantage with respect to the page limitations
imposed by the Court. The Court finds that Defendants’ use of Garamond typeface, even
in the same 13-point font size, resulted in approximately six additional pages of
substantive argument. Accordingly, for the sake of parity, the Court permits Plaintiffs a
six-page extension to be used as they see fit, in their forthcoming filings. Also, because
the undersigned judge prefers the use of Times New Roman typeface, as it is easier to
read, all future filings in this consolidated action, by all parties, including the upcoming
opposition and reply memoranda, shall use 13-point, Times New Roman typeface.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 12, 2018

s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge

2