Rittmann et al v. Amazon.com Inc et al

Filing 61

MINUTE ORDER striking Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss 46 ; Plaintiffs shall submit an amended brief that conforms to the letter and spirit of the Local Civil Rules no later than January 27, 2017; Defendants' Re ply brief due 2/3/2017; Defendants' 36 motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs' 20 motion for notice to be issued are RENOTED to 2/3/2017; denying Defendants' 59 motion for leave to file an over-length reply. Authorized by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (PM)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. C16-1554 JCC
MINUTE ORDER

v.
AMAZON.COM INC, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.

16 Coughenour, United States District Judge:
17

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion for leave to file an over-

18 length reply in support of its motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 59). Defendants’ argument is not that
19 Plaintiffs’ response brief, (Dkt. No. 46), is over the 24 page limit, but rather that its excessive use
20 of footnotes transforms the motion into a 30 page brief. (Dkt. No. 59 at 2.) Plaintiffs’ response
21 brief contains 335 lines of 10 pt. footnote text. (Id.) Pages 14, 16, 18, and 22 are comprised
22 almost entirely of 10 pt. footnotes. (Dkt. No. 46 at 16, 18, 20, 24.)
23

A party may not use “lengthy footnotes in what appears to be [an] . . . effort to skirt the

24 page limitation.” Play Visions, Inc. v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2010 WL 11443116, at *2 (W.D.
25 Wash. Nov. 30, 2010); see also Glassybaby, LLC v. Provide Gifts, Inc., 2011 WL 4571876, at *4
26 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2011) (“The Court is not in the practice of reading lengthy footnotes

MINUTE ORDER, C16-1554 JCC
PAGE - 1

1 where they are used merely as a way to avoid page limitations.”) Plaintiffs’ use of footnotes in
2 the response brief, (Dkt. No. 46), is egregious, and a blatant attempt to avoid the page limits.
3 Defendants have not moved to strike any portion of Plaintiffs’ brief under Local Civil Rule
4 7(e)(6), however pursuant to the case law and Local Civil Rule 7(e)(6), the Court retains
5 discretion to do so. The Court hereby ORDERS the following:
6
7
8
9

1) The Court STRIKES Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt.
No. 46);
2) Plaintiffs’ shall submit an amended brief that conforms to the letter and spirit of the
Local Civil Rules no later than January 27, 2017;

10

3) Defendants’ reply brief is due February 3, 2017;

11

4) Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Dkt. No. 36), and Plaintiffs’ motion for notice to be

12
13

issued, (Dkt. No. 20), are RENOTED to February 3, 2017;
5) Defendants’ motion for leave to file an over-length reply, (Dkt. No. 59), is DENIED.

14
15

DATED this 18th day of January 2017.

16

William M. McCool
Clerk of Court

17

/s/Paula McNabb
Deputy Clerk

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

MINUTE ORDER, C16-1554 JCC
PAGE - 2