Williams v PRK Funding Services Inc et al

Filing 142

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 141 Motion for Leave to File Memorandum in Excess of Page Limit, signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

DAMON CHARLES WILLIAMS,

CASE NO. C18-48RSM

8
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10
11

PRK FUNDING SERVICES, INC., et al.,

12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERLENGTH RESPONSE

Defendants.

13
14

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Memorandum in

15

Excess of Page Limit. Dkt. #141. Plaintiff seeks to “exceed the page limits imposed by the Local

16

Rule on opposition papers to Motion for Summary Judgments, by 30 pages.” Id. Plaintiff asserts

17

that “[t]he requested extension is necessary and important to this Court’s ability to receive a full

18
discussion of the issues presented” and characterizes those issues as complex. Id.
19
“Motions seeking approval to file an over-length motion or brief are disfavored but may

20
21

be filed subject to [several procedural requirements].” LCR 7(f). Plaintiff has complied with the

22

procedural requirements but seeks a significant increase in the page limit—from 24 to 54. 1

23

Plaintiff has not provided the Court a compelling reason that an additional 30 pages are necessary.

24

The matters raised in Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #122) are not overly

25
26
27

1

The page limit applicable to Defendant’s reply would likewise be extended from 12 pages to
27 pages. See LCR 7(f)(4).
ORDER – 1

1

complex as Defendant’s addressed the issues in just 11 pages. The Court is also familiar with

2

the factual background of this case and Plaintiff may focus on the most important factual issues.

3

Lastly, Plaintiff’s other filings have often advanced relevant and irrelevant arguments. Thus, the

4

well-reasoned page limits established by Local Civil Rule 7(f) are reasonable and will serve a

5

beneficial purpose by focusing Plaintiff’s response on the most pertinent facts and issues.

6

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

7
Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Memorandum in
8
9
10

Excess of Page Limit (Dkt. #141) is DENIED.
DATED this 31st day of August, 2018.

11
12

A

13

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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