Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc.
ORDER that Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment 140 , 146 , and 150 are STRICKEN. FURTHER ORDERED that 213 Motion for Leave to File is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Dispositive Motions Deadline is extended until June 30, 2014, for the limited purpose of allowing each party to file a Motion for Summary Judgment that complies with Local Rule 7-4. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 5/30/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
and UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE,
Case No.: 2:12-cv-00111-GMN-NJK
Pending before the Court are the three Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 140,
146, 150) filed by Plaintiffs Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and University of Strathclyde
Also pending before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 213) filed by Defendant Sandoz Inc. (“Defendant”).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 7-4
Rule 7-4 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada provides 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.” D. Nev. R. LR 7-4. A party
cannot simply avoid this limitation on pages by filing multiple motions. Here, Plaintiffs have
done just that. Rather than filing a single Motion for Summary Judgment that complies with
Local Rule 7-4, Plaintiffs opted to file three separate Motions for Partial Summary Judgment,
which amount to more than 60 pages of briefing. The Court will not permit Plaintiffs to
circumvent the Local Rules in this manner. Accordingly, the Court hereby STRIKES
Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment. However, the Court will extend the Dispositive
Page 1 of 2
Motions Deadline until June 30, 2014, to allow Plaintiffs adequate time to file a Motion for
Summary Judgment that complies with Local Rule 7-4. Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’
Motion, which must also comply with the 30-page limit, must be filed by July 21, 2014.
Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief, which must comply with the 20-page limit in Local Rule 7-4, must be
filed by August 4, 2014. No extensions will be granted.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
Because the Court is extending the Dispositive Motions Deadline to allow Plaintiffs to
file their Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court will likewise grant Defendant an identical
extension. Accordingly, the Court will extend the Dispositive Motions Deadline until June 30,
2014, to allow Defendant to file a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs’ Response to
Defendant’s Motion must be filed by July 21, 2014. Defendant’s Reply Brief must be filed by
August 4, 2014. No extensions will be granted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF
Nos. 140, 146, 150) are STRICKEN.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File (ECF No.
213) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Dispositive Motions Deadline is extended until
June 30, 2014, for the limited purpose of allowing each party to file a Motion for Summary
Judgment that complies with Local Rule 7-4.
DATED this _____ day of May, 2014.
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?