Dudley v. City of Kinston et al

Filing 107

ORDER granting 92 Motion to Strike 90 RESPONSE in Opposition; granting 97 Motion to Strike 87 First MOTION for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part 103 Motion to Strike 89 Corrected MOTION for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 9/15/2020. (Stouch, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
No. 4:18-CV-00072-D
Howard Dudley,
Plaintiff,
v.

Order

City of Kinston & A.N. Greene, in his
individual capacity,
Defendants.

Defendants have filed three motions (D.E. 92, 97, and 103) asking the court to strike
various filings because they do not comply with the court’s local rules on page limits.
Having reviewed the allegedly offending filings, the court orders as follows:
1.

The court grants Defendants’ Motion to Strike Amy Moore’s Response in

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony and Request for
Attorneys Fees (D.E. 92). Moore’s Response (D.E. 90) does not comply with the length
requirements in the Local Rules and is stricken from the record. Moore may file an
amended response that complies with the Local Rules within seven days from the date of
entry of this order.
2.

The court grants Defendants’ Motion to Strike Amy Moore’s Motion for

Protective Order (D.E. 97). Moore’s Motion (D.E. 87) does not comply with the length
requirements in the Local Rules and is stricken from the record. Moore may file an
amended motion that complies with the Local Rules within seven days from the date of
entry of this order. If Defendants believe that new matters have been raised in the amended

motion, they may file a response within seven days from the date Moore files the amended
motion.
3.

The court grants Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Corrected Motion

for Protective Order to Limit Deposition of Amy Moore (D.E. 103) in part and denies it in
part. The Corrected Motion (D.E. 89) does not comply with the length requirements in
Local Rules because of the language in Paragraph 1 that adopt and incorporates Moore’s
original Motion for Protective Order (D.E. 87) by reference. The court strikes Paragraph 1
of the Corrected Motion. It will consider the Corrected Motion without that paragraph.
The court admonishes all counsel that they should review the court’s Local Civil
Rules as well as the court’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures
Manual. Future filings should comply with both documents.
Dated: September 15, 2020
______________________________________
ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II
Robert T. TATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNITED S Numbers, II
United States Magistrate Judge

2