Yeager et al v. Fort Knox Security Products

Filing 102

MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 100 Motion for Leave to File ; striking 90 RESPONSE to Motion. Plaintiffs shall have until Monday, August 12, 2013, to re-file their Opposition in accordance with DUCivR 10-1 and DUCivR 7-1. Defendant shall have until Wednesday, August 14, 2013, to file its reply. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 08/08/2013. (asp)

Yeager et al v. Fort Knox Security Products

Doc. 102

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK”
YEAGER, an individual; PMN II, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR OVERLENGTH
MEMORANDUM AND STRIKING
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

vs.

FORT KNOX SECURITY PRODUCTS,
INC., a Utah Corporation,

Case No. 2:11-CV-91

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Overlength
Reply Memorandum.1 Defendant argues that additional pages are needed to fully refute
arguments in Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,2 and to

1

Docket No. 100.

2

Docket No. 90.
1

Dockets.Justia.com

discuss relevant legal authorities. Defendant further argues that Plaintiffs did not comply with
the spacing requirements of DUCivR 10-1(a), which requires text to be “double spaced except
for quoted material and footnotes.” Thus, Defendant argues, Plaintiffs’ Opposition is actually
overlength and justifies an overlength reply.
Under DUCivR 7-1(e) this Court “will approve such requests only for good cause and a
showing of exceptional circumstances.” The Court does not find that Defendant has shown
exceptional circumstances here. However, to avoid prejudice to Defendant, Plaintiffs’
Opposition will be stricken, and Plaintiffs will be required to re-file their opposition in
accordance with DUCivR 10-1 and DUCivR 7-1. Any future violations of the local rules must
be promptly brought to the attention of the Court to avoid undue delay.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Overlength Memorandum (Docket No. 100) is
DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Docket No. 90) is STRICKEN. Plaintiffs shall have until Monday, August 12, 2013, to re-file
their Opposition in accordance with DUCivR 10-1 and DUCivR 7-1. Defendant shall have until
Wednesday, August 14, 2013, to file its reply.
DATED August 8, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
2