City of Orem et al v. Essex Insurance Company

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Denying 51 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 7/10/17. (dla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
CITY OF OREM and JAMES LAURET,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STRIKE

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-425-JNP-PMW
EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY,
District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner

Defendant.

District Judge Jill N. Parrish referred this matter to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M.
Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Before the court is Defendant Evanston
Insurance Company’s (“Evanston”) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs the City of Orem’s and James
Lauret’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Short Form
Discovery Motion to Quash Subpoena. 2 Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and the relevant
law, the court renders the following Memorandum Decision and Order. 3
Evanston argues that Plaintiffs’ opposition to Evanston’s motion to quash should be
stricken for two reasons. First, Evanston argues that Plaintiffs’ opposition brief is untimely
because DUCivR 37-1 requires that an opposing party file “its response three business days after
the filing of the motion.” 4 Second, Evanston claims that Plaintiffs’ opposition memorandum
contains 733 words, which exceeds the word limit authorized by DUCivR 37-1. 5
Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the parties to aid the court in
ensuring the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”
1

Dkt. No. 6.
Dkt. No. 51.
3
Pursuant to DUCivR 7-1(f) and DUCivR 37-1, the court elects to determine the present motion on the
basis of the written memorandum and finds that oral argument would not be helpful or necessary.
4
Dkt. No. 51 at 1 (emphasis in original).
5
Id. at 2.
2

1

(emphasis added). Evanston’s motion to strike not only flies in the face of Rule 1’s mandate but
also misrepresents the court’s short form discovery motion procedure. DUCivR 37-1 states that
a party opposing a short form discovery motion has “five business days” in which to file an
opposition, unless otherwise ordered by the court. DUCivR 37-1(6). DUCivR 37-1 further
specifies that its time limitation is not subject to the additional three days provided for by Rule
6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at n.6. Additionally, DUCivR 37-1 limits an
opposition memorandum to 500 words exclusive of the caption and signature block. Id.
Evanston’s motion to quash was filed on June 29, 2017. 6 Therefore, any opposition by
Plaintiffs was due on or before July 7, 2017. Plaintiffs’ opposition memorandum was timely
filed on July 6, 2017. 7 While the court is not in the business of providing litigation advice, the
court recommends that if Evanston wishes to throw such a paltry punch, it should at a minimum
accurately represent the court’s rules and procedures.
Evanston is correct that Plaintiffs’ opposition memorandum exceeded the word count
limitations outlined in DUCivR 37-1. However, in light of Evanston’s frivolous argument that
Plaintiffs’ opposition was untimely, the court will overlook Plaintiffs’ technical violation of the
rule and consider their opposition memorandum as a whole.

6
7

Dkt. No. 47.
Dkt. No. 49.

2

Based on the foregoing, Evanston’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendant’s Short Form Discovery Motion to Quash Subpoena 8 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 10th Day of July, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

Paul M. Warner
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

8

Dkt. No. 51.

3