Hurd et al v. Clark County School District et al

Filing 200

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED, for good cause shown, that 186 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 196 Defendants' Motion to File Sur-Reply, is DENIED. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/7/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

HURD, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4
5

Plaintiffs,
vs.

6
7
8

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

Case No.: 2:16-cv-02011-GMN-BNW
ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages in their

11

Response, (ECF No. 186), filed by Clark County School District and Shawn Paquette

12

(collectively, “Defendants”), regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs

13

(“Motion for Fees”), (ECF No. 178). Plaintiffs did not file a response. Defendants later filed

14

their Response, (ECF No. 188), to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fees, which exceeds the page limit

15

provided by the Local Rules. See LR 7-3(b).

16

Also pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to File Sur-Reply, (ECF No. 196),

17

in Response to Plaintiffs’ Reply, (ECF No. 190), in support of their Motion for Fees, (ECF No.

18

178). Plaintiffs filed a Response, (ECF No. 198), in opposition to Defendants’ Motion.

19

Defendants did not file a reply.

20

In their Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, Defendants argue that good cause exists

21

for the Court to allow them to file a twenty-nine-page brief. (Def.s’ Mot. Leave to File Excess

22

Pages, 1:26–2:10, ECF No. 186). Defendant’s assert that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fees and the

23

exhibits and declarations in support thereof contain over 600 pages of arguments and

24

supporting exhibits and declarations, which they could not adequately respond to in twenty-four

25

Page 1 of 2

1

pages. (Id.). The Court agrees that good cause exists for Defendants to file a twenty-nine-page

2

Response.

3

In their Motion to File Sur-Reply, Defendants allege that they should have the

4

opportunity to address new arguments Plaintiffs raise in their Reply in Support of their Motion

5

for Fees. (Mot. to File Sur-Reply 2:17–20, 3:9–11). Specifically, Defendants allege that

6

Plaintiffs’ Reply indicates that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s retainer agreement will affect the Plaintiffs’

7

recovery if the full amount of fees requested is not awarded. (Id. 2:17–3:7, 3:20–4:9).

8

Defendants argue that they must be appraised of the nature of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s retainer

9

agreement and have the opportunity to address the argument in a sur-reply because, if

10

Plaintiffs’ recovery will depend on the fees and costs awarded, the Court will consider that in

11

determining the award. (Id. 4:1–12).

12

In their Response, Plaintiffs argue that they have not raised a new issue that Defendants

13

need to brief, and they provide evidence that the fees and costs the Court awards will in no way

14

affect the amount Plaintiffs recover. (Pl.’s Resp. 2:1–3:16); (see also Settlement Checks Paid to

15

Plaintiffs, Exs. 1–2 to Pl.’s Resp., ECF Nos. 198-2–198-3). The Court agrees with Plaintiffs

16

that there are no new issues to which Defendants need to file a sur-reply.

17

Accordingly,

18

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for good cause shown, that Defendants’ Motion for

19
20
21
22

Leave to File Excess Pages, (ECF No. 186), is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to File Sur-Reply, (ECF No.
196), is DENIED.
7
DATED this _____ day of October, 2019.

23
24
25

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court
Page 2 of 2