Downing v. Graves et al

Filing 60

ORDER Denying 59 Motion to Strike 58 Response to 43 Motion. Replies to 43 Motion is due by 1/17/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 1/8/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

CURTIS L. DOWNING,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHNNIE GRAVES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00332-JCM-CWH
ORDER

12
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike (#59), filed January 7, 2014.
13
By way of the motion, Defendants request that the Court strike Plaintiff’s response (#58) because it
14
exceeds the page limitation set forth in Local Rule 7-4. Defendants further request that the Court
15
require Plaintiff to obtain leave to refile any subsequent opposition. Alternatively, Defendants seek
16
an extension of time within which to file a reply.
17
Local Rule 7-4 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 thirty
19
(30) pages including the motion but excluding exhibits.” “Motions, responses, and replies should be
20
plain and concise, and the court will only allow parties to file papers in excess of the page limitations
21
of the Local Rules in relatively rare situations when the issues are so complex that excess pages are
22
required to articulate the parties’ positions.” Randazza v. Cox, 2013 5566230 (D. Nev.). Pursuant to
23
Local Rule IA 4-1(c), the court may impose “any appropriate sanction on parties who fail to adhere
24
to the Local Rules.” See Progressive Games, Inc. v. Shuffle Master, Inc., 69 F.Supp. 2d 1276, n. 2
25
(D. Nev. 1999); see also LR IA 4-1(c) (“The Court may, after notice and opportunity to be heard,
26
impose any and all appropriate sanctions on an attorney or party appearing in pro se who, without

1
2

just cause . . . [f]ails to comply with [the Local Rules].).
Judges have not hesitated to strike or deny motions which violate the page limitations of LR

3

7-4. See Romero v. Dep’t of Corrections, 2013 WL 6206705 *5 (D. Nev.) (noting that a prior

4

opposition had been stricken for failure to comply with LR 7-4); Branch Banking and Trust Co. v.

5

Pebble Creek Plaza, LLC, 2013 WL 6122387 (D. Nev.) (striking four separately filed motions for

6

summary judgment which, when taken together, exceeded the page limitation of LR 7-4 and

7

constituted an improper attempt to circumvent the rule); Joson v. Bank of America, 2013 WL

8

1249714 *3 (D. Nev.) (striking an opposition to a dispositive motion that exceeded the page

9

limitation of LR 7-4); Olin Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., 2012 WL 2884803 (D. Nev.) (denying

10

without prejudice several motions for summary judgment filed separated in an improper attempt to

11

circumvent LR 7-4). The Ninth Circuit has upheld the determination to strike briefs which run afoul

12

of page limitations set by local rules. See King County v. Rasmussen, 299 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir.

13

2002) (concluding that the district court acted appropriately in striking portions of a summary

14

judgment brief that exceeded the page limitations set by local rule). The Ninth Circuit has also

15

refused to consider briefing that exceeds its own rules regarding page limitations. United States v.

16

Marchini, 797 F.2d 759, 767 (9th Cir. 1986) (refusing to consider portions of appellate brief that

17

violated the rules regarding page limitations).

18

It is well within the Court’s authority to strike a motion or briefing that exceeds the page

19

limitations of LR 7-4 if the filing party does not first obtain leave to file in excess of the presumptive

20

limitation. Generally speaking, even when the Court permits longer briefing it requires the inclusion

21

of a table of contents and table of authorities. See LR 7-4. There is no question that, in this

22

instance, Plaintiff’s opposition (#58) violates the page limitation requirement of LR 7-4. The Court

23

would normally be inclined to strike the brief with instruction that the filing party obtain leave and

24

comply with the particulars of LR 7-4. The Court notes, however, that the response is handwritten

25

and, in all likelihood, would be substantially shorter were it typed. Additionally, Defendants indicate

26
2

1

that an extension of time within which to file a reply brief would adequately cure any prejudice they

2

might encounter due to length of the response. The Court agrees that an extension is sufficient under

3

the circumstances. Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike (#59) is denied.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ request for an extension of time to file a

6
7

reply brief is granted. Defendants’ reply shall be filed by Friday, January 17, 2014.
Dated: January 8, 2014.

8
9
10

C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3