Olausen v. Murguia et al

Filing 166

ORDER overruling ECF Nos. 159 , 163 Objections. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/19/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

STEVEN JOHN OLAUSEN,

10
11
12

Case No. 3:13-cv-00388-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
SGT. MURGUIA, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

The Court overrules Plaintiff's two objections (ECF Nos. 159, 163) to the

16

Magistrate Judge's Orders relating to Plaintiff's filings of briefs that violates LR 7-3's limit

17

on the length of brief. In the first Order issued on June 21, 2016 (ECF No. 156) (June 21

18

Order), the Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment to

19

be stricken for violation of LR 7-3(a). Plaintiff does not object to this part of the June 21

20

Order but indicated that he had submitted a motion to exceed the page limit that was

21

not filed.1 Plaintiff objects to the June 21 Order to the extent it gives Defendants the

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Such a motion requires a showing of good cause and must be filed in advance
of the excess page motion. LR 7-3(c) provides as follows:
The court looks with disfavor on motions to exceed page limits, so
permission to do so will not be routinely granted. A motion to file a brief
that exceeds these page limits will be granted only upon a showing of
good cause. A motion to exceed these page limits must be filed before the
motion or brief is due and must be accompanied by a declaration stating in
detail the reasons for, and number of, additional pages requested. The
motion must not be styled as an ex parte or emergency motion and is
limited to three pages in length. Failure to comply with this subsection will
result in denial of the request. The filing of a motion to exceed the page
(fn. cont...)

1

option of withdrawing their opposition and cross-motion or filing a notice stating they

2

wish their opposition and cross-motion to stand because Plaintiff had filed a motion to

3

strike these documents. (ECF No. 159 at 3.) The June 21 Order did not address

4

Plaintiff's motion to strike, but only addressed Plaintiff's violation of LR 7-3. Plaintiff's

5

objection (ECF No. 159) is overruled.

6

The July 11, 2016, Order directed Plaintiff's separately filed motions for partial

7

summary judgment to be stricken as an attempt to circumvent LR 7-3(a)'s limit on the

8

length of brief because Plaintiff split his motion into two separate motions. (ECF No.

9

160.) Plaintiff objects, arguing that there exists no statute or rule that prohibits the filing

10

of multiple motions for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge's decision is not

11

clearly erroneous. In fact, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's finding that

12

Plaintiff's splitting of his excess motion into two motions is a clear attempt to circumvent

13

LR 7-3(a). Plaintiff's objection (ECF No. 163) is overruled.

14

DATED THIS 19th day of July 2016.

15
16

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(…fn. cont.)

limit does not stay the deadline for the underlying motion or brief. In the
absence of a court order by the deadline for the underlying motion or brief,
the motion to exceed page limits is deemed denied. If the court permits a
longer document, the oversized document must include a table of contents
and a table of authorities.