Nellams v. Pacific Maritime Association et al

Filing 76

ORDER denying Defendant Pacific Maritime Association's 75 Stipulated Motion for Leave to File Overlength Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

ABIN’BOLA NELLAMS,

8

CASE NO. C17-911RSM
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10
11

PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et
al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Pacific Maritime Association’s Stipulated

15
16

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
OVERLENGTH MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Motion for Leave to File Overlength Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. #75. Defendant seeks

17

to file a 30-page motion for summary judgment (six additional pages) addressing the “industry’s

18

complex labor practices and [Defendant’s] role in them; claims reaching back to 2009; and

19

multiple defenses to support and brief.” Dkt. #75.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Defendant acknowledges that motions for over-length briefs are disfavored under the
Local Civil Rules: “Motions seeking approval to file an over-length motion or brief are
disfavored but may be filed subject to the following [procedural requirements].” LCR 7(f).
Defendant has complied with the procedural requirements and indicates that no represented party
opposes the motion.1 The parties cannot agree to enlarge the Court’s well-reasoned page limits
1

Not opposing, of course, is different than stipulating to the Motion. The Court notes that no
other party has signed—or authorized signature of—the Motion. Dkt. #75.

ORDER – 1

1

and the Court sees no compelling reason to do so here. Plaintiff’s Motion and its general

2

justifications do not demonstrate that the issues cannot be addressed in 24 pages and the page

3

limit plays an important role in focusing the facts and the arguments to the most relevant issues.

4

Accordingly, having reviewed Defendant’s Motion and the remainder of the record, the

5
6

Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendant’s Stipulated Motion for Leave to File
Overlength Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

7
8

DATED this 14 day of August, 2018.

9
10

A

11

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER – 2