Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc.

Filing 225

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)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
and UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE,

5

Plaintiffs,

6

vs.

7

SANDOZ INC.,

8

Defendant.

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-00111-GMN-NJK
ORDER

Pending before the Court are the three Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 140,

10
11

146, 150) filed by Plaintiffs Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and University of Strathclyde

12

(“Plaintiffs”).
Also pending before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary

13
14

Judgment (ECF No. 213) filed by Defendant Sandoz Inc. (“Defendant”).

15

I.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 7-4

16

Rule 7-4 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the

17

District of Nevada provides that “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the Court, pretrial and post-trial

18

briefs and points and authorities in support of, or in response to, motions shall be limited to

19

thirty (30) pages including the motion but excluding exhibits.” D. Nev. R. LR 7-4. A party

20

cannot simply avoid this limitation on pages by filing multiple motions. Here, Plaintiffs have

21

done just that. Rather than filing a single Motion for Summary Judgment that complies with

22

Local Rule 7-4, Plaintiffs opted to file three separate Motions for Partial Summary Judgment,

23

which amount to more than 60 pages of briefing. The Court will not permit Plaintiffs to

24

circumvent the Local Rules in this manner. Accordingly, the Court hereby STRIKES

25

Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment. However, the Court will extend the Dispositive

Page 1 of 2

1

Motions Deadline until June 30, 2014, to allow Plaintiffs adequate time to file a Motion for

2

Summary Judgment that complies with Local Rule 7-4. Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’

3

Motion, which must also comply with the 30-page limit, must be filed by July 21, 2014.

4

Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief, which must comply with the 20-page limit in Local Rule 7-4, must be

5

filed by August 4, 2014. No extensions will be granted.

6

II.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

7

Because the Court is extending the Dispositive Motions Deadline to allow Plaintiffs to

8

file their Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court will likewise grant Defendant an identical

9

extension. Accordingly, the Court will extend the Dispositive Motions Deadline until June 30,

10

2014, to allow Defendant to file a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs’ Response to

11

Defendant’s Motion must be filed by July 21, 2014. Defendant’s Reply Brief must be filed by

12

August 4, 2014. No extensions will be granted.

13

III.

14
15
16
17
18

CONCLUSION
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

19

June 30, 2014, for the limited purpose of allowing each party to file a Motion for Summary

20

Judgment that complies with Local Rule 7-4.

21

DATED this _____ day of May, 2014.
30

22
23
24

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

25

Page 2 of 2