United States Fire Insurance Company et al v. Icicle Seafoods Inc et al

Filing 48

ORDER denying the Insurers' 47 Motion for Leave to File Over-length Brief. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)

Case 2:20-cv-00401-RSM Document 48 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim
Defendants,

10
11
12
13
14

v.
ICICLE SEAFOODS, INC., et al.,

IN ADMIRALTY
NO. C20-00401-RSM
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE OVER-LENGTH
BRIEF

Defendants/Counterclaim
Plaintiffs.

15
16
17

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendants United States
Fire Insurance Company, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Great

18
American Insurance Company of New York, Argonaut Insurance Company, Endurance
19
20

American Insurance Company, Houston Casualty Company, and Certain Underwriters at

21

Lloyd’s, London (“the Insurers”)’s Motion to File an Over-Length Brief. Dkt. #47. Insurers

22

request an additional six pages, for a total of eighteen pages, to respond to Defendants’ motion

23

for disqualification of counsel, Dkt. #45. Defendants have not objected to the Insurers’ motion.

24

Motions seeking approval to file an over-length motion or brief are disfavored but may

25

be filed subject to certain procedural conditions. LCR 7(f). No opposition shall be filed unless

26

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE OVER-LENGTH BRIEF - 1

Case 2:20-cv-00401-RSM Document 48 Filed 11/20/20 Page 2 of 2

requested by the court. LCR 7(f)(3). The Court finds opposition briefing from Defendants
1
2

unnecessary.

3

The Insurers request six additional pages for their response brief given that the factual

4

portion of the brief is currently six pages, and Defendants seek the drastic remedy of

5

disqualification. As a result, Insurers argue, they require an additional twelve pages “to fully

6
7

set out the authority applicable to Icicle’s motion and effectively make their response
argument.” Dkt. #47 at 2.

8
9
10

The Court finds that these reasons do not sufficiently justify an extension of the page
limit by six pages for their response brief, where the original page limit is set at twelve. Having

11

reviewed the Insurers’ Motion and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and

12

ORDERS that the Insurers’ Motion for Over-length Briefing, Dkt. #47, is DENIED.

13
14

DATED this 20th day of November, 2020.

15
16
17
18

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE OVER-LENGTH BRIEF - 2