Dudley v. City of Kinston et al
ORDER denying 127 Motion to Strike 125 Memorandum in Support. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 10/6/2020. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical information. (Stouch, L.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
City of Kinston & A.N. Greene, in his
Yet again a party asks the court to strike a filing for allegedly violating the local rules. This
time, Plaintiff Howard Dudley asks the court to strike a supplemental brief Defendants’ filed
because it allegedly violates this court’s local rules on the length of briefs. D.E. 127. The court has
been through similar exercises several times before. D.E. 92, 97, 103.
Recently, the court held a hearing on several pending motions. At the end of the hearing,
the court allowed the parties to file supplemental briefs on issues related to a discovery dispute.
Both parties did so. D.E. 124, 125.
Dudley now claims that Defendants’ brief is too long. He asserts that under this court’s
local rules, it “is clear that a memorandum in support of or in opposition to a discovery motion
shall not exceed 10 pages in length and shall not exceed 2800 words.” Mot. to Strike ¶ 5. As
Defendants’ brief spills over onto an eleventh page and contains 3,387 words, Dudley believes the
court should toss the Defendants’ filing.
Local Rule 7.2(f) governs the length of memoranda submitted in support of a motion. As
it explains that “memoranda must confirm to either the page limits or word limits below.” Local
Civil Rule 7.2(f). For discovery-related motions, the page limit for a memorandum in support is
10 pages or 2,800 words. Id. 7.2(f)(2), (f)(3). Certain items, including the case caption and the
signature block do not count towards these limits. Id. 7.2(f)(1).
Dudley claims Defendants need to comply with both the page and word limits. Mot. to
Strike ¶ 5. He is wrong. A party satisfies the local rules by submitting a memorandum that complies
with “either the page limits or the word limits” listed in the Rule. Local Civil Rule 7.2(f). While
complying with both limits is better, one is enough.
The court concludes that there is no need to strike Defendants’ memorandum. Although it
is 11 pages long, once the caption and signature block are removed, the filing appears to meet the
Dudley also complains that Defendants’ brief lacks the word-count certification required
by Local Rule 7.2. That provision applies only if a party is relying on the word-limit provision set
out in the rule. Local Rule 7.2(f)(3). As Defendants are relying on the page-limit requirement, they
did not need to include a certification.
A review of the docket shows that neither party has a monopoly on local rule violations.
Local Rule 5.1(a)(1) requires that “all documents submitted for filing shall be filed electronically
. . . in accordance with the Policy Manual.” And the court’s CM/ECF Policy Manual requires that
“Except as provided in Local Civil Rule 56.1, all memoranda of law in support of motions,
affidavits, and declarations must be filed as separate docket entries and not as attachments to
motions, responses, or replies.” CM/ECF Policy Manual, Section V.E.1(b). Yet most, if not all,
motions the parties have filed violate this rule by combining the motion and memoranda into one
document. That violation joins the array of other violations the parties have raised in their earlier
motions to strike.
The court reminds the parties that the local rules “should be construed, administered, and
employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination
of every action and proceeding.” Local Civil Rule 1.1 (emphasis added). The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure impose a similar obligation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (containing identical language).
Regular violations of local rules and serial motions to strike are no way to achieve a speedy
and inexpensive outcome in this or any other action. Instead, they lead to an unnecessary
expenditure of resources by the parties and the court, while raising the level of animosity between
counsel. Everyone involved with this case would be better served by focusing their energy and
efforts on completing discovery and moving this matter towards its conclusion.
Thus, it is ordered that:
1. The court denies the motion to strike (D.E. 127).
2. The attorneys for each party and counsel for Amy Moore must review the court’s Local
Civil Rules and its CM/ECF Policy Manual. Any non-attorneys responsible for
electronically filing materials with the court must review these items as well.
3. The court will be reviewing filings for compliance with the local rules and CM/ECF Policy
Manual. If violations are found, the Clerk of Court may strike the filing without further
notice or opportunity to cure. The court may also impose other sanctions on counsel for
local rules violations including a fine or the initiation of contempt proceedings.
4. Any more motions to strike based on local rules violations are strongly disfavored. Before
any attorney moves to strike a filing due to an alleged local rules violation, they must meet
and confer; either in person, over the telephone, or through video; with the attorney who
filed the allegedly offending pleading.
5. If a violation has occurred, an amended or corrected submission should be promptly filed.
6. No motion to strike may be filed until at least 36 hours have passed since the meet and
confer process ended.
7. Any motion to strike must come with a certification saying that this consultation occurred
Dated: October 16, 2020
ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II
Robert S Numbers, II
UNITEDT.TATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?