Bonta v. Washoe County et al

Filing 36

ORDER that the Motion to Strike (ECF No. 31 ) is GRANTED, and the Response (ECF No. 30 ) is STRICKEN; a consolidated response to the Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 28 , 29 ) of no more than twenty-four (24) pages is due by 10/2/20 18, and any replies of no more than twelve (12) pages are due within seven (7) days thereafter; Failure to comply may constitute a consent to the granting of the motions to dismiss under Local Rule 7-2(d). Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 9/25/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

______________________________________
)
)
LISA BONTA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WASHOE COUNTY et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

3:18-cv-00012-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

12
13

This case arises out of the treatment of a disabled witness by first responders at the scene

14

of a shooting. Plaintiff sued Washoe County (“the County”) and the City of Reno (“the City”)

15

for failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the

16

Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). The County and the City separately moved to dismiss. The Court

17

granted the motions, with leave to amend. Plaintiff amended, and the County and the City again

18

have separately moved to dismiss.

19

Plaintiff has responded with an oversized briefing, without requesting leave to exceed the

20

page limits. The City has therefore asked the Court to strike the response and stay the time to

21

reply. The Court grants the motion. The page limit for motions to dismiss and responses thereto

22

is twenty-four. L.R. 7-3(b). There is no good cause to increase the page limit based on the fact

23

that the response is a consolidated response to the separate motions to dismiss, because the total

24
1 of 2

1

pages of substantive argument in those motions is not more than twenty-four, but only fourteen.

2

See L.R. 7-3(c). Even if Defendants’ substantive arguments totaled over twenty-four pages, such

3

that there might be good cause to permit a consolidated, oversized response (as opposed to two

4

separate, normal-sized responses) for the sake of efficiency, Plaintiff made no request to file an

5

oversized brief, and because such requests must be made before the brief is due, a retroactive

6

request would be in violation of the rule and therefore could not be granted. See id.
CONCLUSION

7
8
9
10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Strike (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED, and
the Response (ECF No. 30) is STRICKEN.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a consolidated response to the Motions to Dismiss

11

(ECF Nos. 28, 29) of no more than twenty-four (24) pages is due within seven (7) days of this

12

Order, and any replies of no more than twelve (12) pages are due within seven (7) days

13

thereafter. Failure to comply may constitute a consent to the granting of the motions to dismiss

14

under Local Rule 7-2(d).

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
25th day of September, 2018.
Dated this 11th day of September, 2018.

17
18

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
2 of 2