Vincent et al v. Utah Plastic Surgery Society et al

Filing 87

MEMORANDUM DECISION denying #82 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 02/08/2013. (asp)

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

DR. DRAKE VINCENT, MD, an individual,
and DR. BENJAMIN DUNKLEY, D.O., an
individual,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE

Plaintiffs,

vs.

UTAH PLASTIC SURGERY SOCIETY, an
unincorporated Utah organization,
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLASTIC
SURGEONS, a nonprofit Illinois corporation,
THE AMERICAN BOARD OF PLASTIC
SURGERY, an unincorporated Pennsylvania
organization, and the following BOARD
MEMBERS OF THE UTAH PLASTIC
SURGERY SOCIETY doctors licensed to
practice in Utah including: DR. W.
BRADFORD ROCKWELL, M.D., DR.
GREGORY KJAR, M.D., DR. RENATO
SALTZ, M.D., DR. GRANT R.
FAIRBANKS, M.D., DR. JUNE S. CHEN,
M.D., DR. BRYAN V. SONNTAG, M.D.,
DR. ERIC ASHBY, M.D., DR. STEPHEN
RALSTON, M.D., DR. YORK YATES,
M.D., DR. LEE J. MALAN, DR. TRENTON
JONES, DR. BRIAN K. BROWSKI, M.D.,
DR. DAVID S. THOMAS, M.D., DR.
KIMBALL M. CROFTS, M.D., DR.
DANIEL SELLERS, M.D., DR. GRANT
A. FAIRBANKS, M.D., DR. CHRISTINE A.
CHENG, M.D., DR. R. SCOTT HAUPT,

Case No. 2:12-CV-1048 TS

M.D., DR. JAMES M. CLAYTON, M.D.;
DOES 1-10, individuals, and DOES
CORPORATIONS 1-10, corporations,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Memorandum of
Law in Excess of Page Limitation.1 Through this Motion, Plaintiffs seek leave of Court to file an
over-length memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Local Rule 7-1(b)(2)(A) provides the page limitations for response and reply memoranda
filed in relation to motions made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b), 12(c), 56,
and 65.2 It provides that memoranda filed in opposition to such motions “must not exceed
twenty-five (25) pages, exclusive of any of the following items: face sheet, table of contents,
concise introduction, response to the statement of elements and undisputed material facts, any
statement of additional elements and/or undisputed material facts, table of exhibits, and
exhibits.”
Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a single memorandum in opposition to six separate
motions to dismiss filed by Defendants. All but three of the motions to dismiss consist of little
or no argument, instead seeking to join in the arguments made in the co-Defendants’ motions to
dismiss. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, each of Defendants’ substantive memoranda comply
with the page limitations set by this Court. Plaintiffs’ proposed opposition memorandum, on the

1

Docket No. 82.

2

See DUCivR 7-1(b)(2)(A).

other hand, is well outside the parameters of the local rule—containing sixty-two pages of
argument.3
Further, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Local Rule
7-1(e). That rule provides that “[a] lengthy . . . memorandum must not be filed with the clerk
prior to entry of an order authorizing its filing.” Plaintiffs filed their over-length memorandum
three days prior to seeking leave of the Court to exceed the page limitations.
Based on the foregoing, the Court will strike Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition and
grant Plaintiff an additional fourteen days to file a memorandum in compliance with Local Rule
7-1(b)(2)(A). It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Memorandum of Law in Excess of
Page Limitation (Docket No. 82) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to STRIKE
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition (Docket No. 81). Plaintiffs shall have fourteen (14) days
from the date of this Order to file its memorandum or memoranda in opposition.
DATED February 8, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

3

See Docket No. 81.