INGRAM v. COUNTY OF CAMDEN et al

Filing 204

OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 11/16/2018. (rtm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

XAVIER INGRAM,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.
14-5519 (JBS-KMW)

v.
COUNTY OF CAMDEN, et al.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants.

SIMANDLE, District Judge:
1.

This matter comes before the Court by way of Motion to

Strike the Expert Opinions and Testimony of Christopher Chapman,
filed by Defendants County of Camden, Camden County Police
Department, Nicholas Marchiafava, John Scott Thomson, and
Orlando Cuevas (hereinafter “Moving Defendants”) on July 25,
2018. (See Motion to Strike [Docket Item 142].) After being
granted numerous extensions, Plaintiff Xavier Ingram filed a
brief in opposition to Moving Defendants’ Motion to Strike Dr.
Chapman’s Testimony on October 2, 2018. (See Brief in Opposition
[Docket Item 177].) On October 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed an
additional document in opposition to Moving Defendants’ present
Motion to Strike Dr. Chapman’s Testimony, titled “Plaintiff’s
Respone [sic] to Defendant’s [sic] Schedules (A-E).” (See
Further Opposition [Docket Item 178].) On October 22, 2018,

Moving Defendants filed an additional Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s additional document in opposition to the underlying
Motion to Strike, as overlength. (See Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s Brief [Docket Item 198].) On November 5, 2018,
Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for leave to file an overlength
brief nunc pro tunc. (See Cross-Motion [Docket Item 202].)1
The Court has considered the submissions and shall decide
the pending cross-motions [Docket Items 198 & 202] pursuant to
Rule 78(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.
2.

For the reasons set forth below and for good cause

shown, Moving Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
overlength submission [Docket Item 198] will be denied,
Plaintiff’s cross-motion for leave to file an overlength
submission nunc pro tunc [Docket Item 202] will be granted, and
Moving Defendants will be granted leave to file an overlength
reply brief with regards to their pending Motion to Strike Dr.
Chapman’s Testimony [Docket Item 142], by no later than November
30, 2018.

1

Moving Defendants have also filed a letter seeking an extension
of time to submit briefs regarding the pending cross-motions. (See
Letter [Docket Item 203].) However, as Moving Defendants and
Plaintiff have both submitted briefs regarding the appropriateness
of Plaintiff’s additional submission [Docket Item 178], the Court
deems that it is appropriate to decide the cross-motions without
further briefing.
2

3.

The Court notes that the permissible length of briefs

submitted to the Court is governed by Rule 7.2, L.Civ.R., which
provides, in relevant part:
(b) Any brief shall include a table of
contents and a table of authorities and shall
not exceed 40 ordinary typed or printed pages
(15 pages for any reply brief submitted under
L.Civ.R. 7.1(d)(3) and any brief in support of
or
in
opposition
to
a
motion
for
reconsideration
submitted
under
L.Civ.R.
7.1(i)), excluding pages required for the
table of contents and authorities. Briefs of
greater length will only be accepted if
special permission of the Judge or Magistrate
Judge is obtained prior to submission of the
brief.
[. . .]
(d) Each page of a brief shall contain doublespaced text and/or single-spaced footnotes or
inserts. Typeface shall be in 12-point nonproportional font (such as Courier New 12) or
an equivalent 14-point proportional font (such
as Times New Roman 14). If a 12-point
proportional font is used instead, the page
limits shall be reduced by 25 percent (e.g.,
the 40 page limit becomes 30 pages in this
font and the 15 page limit becomes 11.25
pages). Footnotes shall be printed in the same
size of type utilized in the text.
L.Civ.R. 7.2.
4.

Moving Defendants’ initial brief in support of their

Motion to Strike Dr. Chapman’s Testimony appears to be written
in 12-point Times New Roman font, therefore, under Rule 7.2(d),
L.Civ.R., the brief is limited to a maximum length of thirty
(30) pages. (See Moving Defs.’ Br. [Docket Item 142-1].) Moving

3

Defendant’s brief includes precisely thirty (30) pages,
including seventeen (17) double-spaced pages of legal argument,
followed by thirteen (13) single-spaced pages that Moving
Defendants have termed Schedules A-E. (See id.) Moving
Defendants’ “Schedules” are not a “table of contents and
authorities,” as contemplated by Rule 7.2, L.Civ.R., therefore
the length of these “Schedules” would contribute to the thirtypage limit set by the Rule. These “Schedules” are considered
part of the argument in the brief because they explain and
identify the allegedly objectionable parts of Dr. Chapman’s
opinions and testimony to which Moving Defendants’ arguments are
directed. These “Schedules” are not double-spaced, as required
by Rule 7.2(d), L.Civ.R., and if they were the combined length
of Moving Defendants’ brief would certainly exceed the thirtypage limit provided by the Rule. Therefore, the Court finds that
Moving Defendants’ brief filed in support of their Motion to
Strike Dr. Chapman’s Testimony is itself in violation of the
length requirements set forth by Local Civil Rule 7.2.
5.

Moving Defendants did not seek leave to file an

overlength brief prior to filing their overlength brief in
support of their Motion to Strike Dr. Chapman’s Testimony, as
required by Rule 7.2(b), L.Civ.R., nor have they ever filed a
motion seeking leave to file such a brief nunc pro tunc.
Nevertheless, in light of the complexity of the motion, the

4

Court finds that permitting consideration of the brief is the
most efficient and appropriate course of action at this time,
and therefore the Court shall consider Moving Defendants’
overlength brief.
6.

Plaintiff’s brief in opposition to the Motion to

Strike Dr. Chapman’s Testimony contains just over twenty-five
(25) pages of double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, in
compliance with the requirements of Rule 7.2, L.Civ.R. (See
Brief in Opposition [Docket Item 177].)
7.

But, Plaintiff filed an additional document in

response to the “Schedules” attached to Moving Defendants’
brief, which is over fifty-eight (58) pages long. (See Further
Opposition [Docket Item 178].) That additional document is
clearly argument and its length must be included in the pagecount. Plaintiff did not seek leave to file an overlength brief
prior to filing this document. Submission of such a lengthy
brief is a clear violation of Rule 7.2, L.Civ.R. However, this
brief was submitted in part to respond to the overlength brief
filed by Moving Defendants, described supra, and it also
reproduces large portions of Moving Defendants’ overlength brief
in a manner that makes the document very organized and helpful
to the Court’s consideration of the underlying motion.
Therefore, again given the complexity of the motion, the Court
shall deny Moving Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s

5

overlength submission [Docket Item 198], and grant Plaintiff’s
cross-motion for leave to file his overlength submission nunc
pro tunc [Docket Item 202].
8.

Additionally, the Court shall grant Moving Defendants

leave to file an overlength reply brief, with regards to their
pending Motion to Strike [Docket Item 142]. Such a reply brief
shall be filed by no later than November 30, 2018 and shall not
exceed twenty-five (25) pages of double-spaced, 12-point, nonproportional font or its equivalent, pursuant to Rule 7.2,
L.Civ.R.
9.

The Court finally notes that both sides have violated

Local Civil Rule 7.2’s briefing limitations. Rather than
striking all non-compliant briefs, the Court elects to permit
the overlength briefs on both sides and give Moving Defendants
leeway on their reply brief due to the plethora of issues and
arguments raised by the underlying motion to strike Dr.
Chapman’s opinions and testimony.
10.

For the reasons stated above, Moving Defendants’

Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s overlength submission [Docket Item
198] will be denied, Plaintiff’s cross-motion for leave to file
an overlength submission nunc pro tunc [Docket Item 202] will be
granted, and Moving Defendants will be granted leave to file an
overlength reply brief with regards to their pending Motion to

6

Strike Dr. Chapman’s Testimony [Docket Item 142], by no later
than November 30, 2018. An accompanying Order will be entered.

November 16, 2018
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge

7