Ultra Internet Media, S.A. v. Harrah's License Company, LLC

Filing 147

ORDER Denying 118 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Response to Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/8/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

-RJJ Ultra Internet Media, S.A. v. Harrah's License Company, LLC

Doc. 147

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge

ULTRA INTERNET MEDIA S.A., Plaintiff, v. HARRAH'S LICENSE COMPANY, LLC, Defendant.

2:10-CV-455 JCM (RJJ)

ORDER Presently before the court is plaintiff Ultra Internet Media's ("UIM") motion to strike defendant Harrah's response (doc. #113) to UIM's motions for summary judgment. (Doc. #118). Defendants Caesars Interactive Entertainment, Inc., and Harrah's License Company, LLC, have responded. (Doc. #130). UIM contends that Harrah's has violated Local Rule 7-4, which requires that "[u]nless otherwise ordered by the court, pretrial and post-trial briefs and points and authorities in support of, or in response to, motions shall be limited to thirty (30) pages including the motion but excluding exhibits." Here, Harrah's has filed a memorandum of points and authorities that is 26-pages long, plus an additional 46-page statement of facts, for a total of 72 pages. Harrah's responds that the fact statement, which was attached as an exhibit, should not be included in the total page count. The court agrees that Harrah's could have filed three separate responses to the motions for summary judgment for a total of 90 pages; therefore, even if the two documents are counted together, Harrah's has complied with the page limit. UIM has not been prejudiced by defendants' decision to

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

file a single, consolidated opposition to the motions for summary judgment, and the court sees no reason to strike the response. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff's motion to strike (doc. #118) defendant's response to the motions for summary judgment is DENIED. DATED March 8, 2011.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge

-2-