Baker v. Hopkins et al
Filing
245
ORDER denying Defendants' 244 Motion for Leave to File Over-length Motion. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (KRA)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
JAMALL S. BAKER,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
14
CASE NO. C21-361 MJP
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE OVERLENGTH
MOTION
TAMMY O'REILLY, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to File Overlength Brief.
17
(Dkt. No. 244.) Defendants seek an addition 1,050 words to file a motion for reconsideration of
18
the Court’s Order on their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Defendants justify this request
19
on the theory that the Court “inadvertently overlooked LCR 7(g)(4), which permits the Court to
20
order a response to a surreply motion” and therefore they should have additional space in which
21
to seek reconsideration. (Mot. at 1.) Defendants are wrong—the Court overlooked nothing. Local
22
Civil Rule 7(g)(4) states: “No response [to a surreply] shall be filed unless requested by the
23
court.” Here, the Court believed no response was necessary or appropriate, particularly since the
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERLENGTH MOTION - 1
1
surreply raised an issue that did not affect the outcome of the merits of Defendants’ Motion for
2
Partial Summary Judgment. Defendants are entitled to move for reconsideration, but they must
3
do so within the word limits set forth in the Local Civil Rules. Defendants should also heed the
4
fact that motions for reconsideration are disfavored. LCR 7(h)(1). For these reasons the Court
5
DENIES the Motion.
6
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
7
Dated January 28, 2025.
8
A
9
Marsha J. Pechman
United States Senior District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERLENGTH MOTION - 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?