BAUGH v. ROBERT MORRIS UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 46 Motion to Strike. Signed by Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 8/25/17. (bfm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT MORRIS UNIVERSITY,
Civil No. 16-430
Pending before the court is plaintiff Jeanne Baugh’s motion to strike ECF No. 36 (ECF
No. 46). Defendant Robert Morris University filed a response in opposition thereto (ECF No.
ECF No. 36 is defendant’s memorandum of law in support of its motion for summary
judgment. The basis for plaintiff’s motion to strike is that defendant’s memorandum of law is
twenty-two pages long, twenty-one pages of which contain substantive argument, which is in
excess of the court’s chamber rule on page limits for briefs in support of motions for summary
judgment, and defendant did not seek leave of court to file a brief in excess of the chamber rule.
Pl.’s Br. in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. to Str. ECF No. 36, ECF No. 47 at 1.
Defendant’s memorandum of law in support of it motion for summary judgment is
twenty-two pages in length. Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def. Mot. for Summ. J. at 1-22, ECF No.
36 at 1-22. Pages 1-20 contain substantive argument; page 21 contains a signature block and
unnumbered page 22 contains a "certificate of service." Id.
The applicable court chamber rule provides, “[b]riefs in support of and opposing
summary judgment motions shall be limited to 20 pages, excluding tables.” CIVIL CASES,
Pretrial Procedure, General Motion Practice, Page Limits, p. 4. Defendant’s memorandum of
law in support of its motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 36) complies with this rule.
AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2017, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
motion to strike filed on behalf of plaintiff Jeanne Baugh (ECF No. 46) is DENIED.
By the court:
s/Joy Flowers Conti
Joy Flowers Conti
Chief United States District 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?