Free Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cv-01315-REB-CBS

Document 157

Filed 10/24/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 01-cv-01315-REB-CBS LEONARD BALDAUF, Plaintiff,
v.

JOHN HYATT, et. al. Defendants.

DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT FOR REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT with Proposed Order

Defendants John Hyatt, Robert Fahey, Betty Fulton, Paul Carreras, Connie Davis, Ken Maestas, Joseph Garcia, and David Archuleta, (hereinafter collectively "Defendants"), by and through their counsel, Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. of Hall & Evans, L.L.C., hereby respectfully submit this Unopposed Motion to Exceed Page Limit for Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, and as grounds as follows: 1. This Court's Practice Standards for Civil Actions establish a ten (10) page

limit on reply briefs for motions for summary judgment. See REB Civ. Practice Standard V.I.4. Defendants respectfully request leave of this Court to file the accompanying

Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment which is twentyone (21) pages. 2. Defendants submit that an oversize reply brief is necessary and fully

justified in this matter for several different reasons. First, Plaintiff's remaining 42 U.S.C.

Case 1:01-cv-01315-REB-CBS

Document 157

Filed 10/24/2007

Page 2 of 4

§ 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim is against eight individual Defendants. These Defendants have filed a combined motion for summary judgment and are filing a combined reply brief for ease of the parties and this Court. Second, Plaintiff's

Response to Motion for Summary Judgment does not differentiate between the allegations against each of the eight individual Defendants. As a result, Defendants in their Reply Brief are required to analyze the twenty-eight (28) separate and discrete events Plaintiff alleges constitute retaliatory conduct by these Defendants. Such an analysis and refutation of the Plaintiff's general arguments in the Plaintiff's Response requires additional pages to accomplish in the Reply Brief. Third, Plaintiff's Response contains a request for additional discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), requiring the Defendants to present the law for such requests and to analyze why the Plaintiff should not be entitled to any additional discovery. Fourth, this Court previously allowed the Defendants to submit an oversize Motion for Summary Judgment demonstrating the Court's recognition of the need by Defendants to fully explore the factual and legal issues presented on summary judgment. Based on these considerations, Defendants respectfully suggest the length of the Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment is necessary to allow this Court to make an informed decision about the issues presented. Counsel for the Defendants has attempted to present the Defendants' summary judgment arguments in as concise a fashion as possible but believes the presentation in the accompanying Reply Brief is both necessary and warranted in this case.

2

Case 1:01-cv-01315-REB-CBS

Document 157

Filed 10/24/2007

Page 3 of 4

3.

Pursuant to D.C.Colo.LCiv.R. 7.1(A), counsel for the Defendants is

required to confer with counsel for the Plaintiff regarding this Motion. Prior to filing this Motion, counsel for the Defendants exchanged email with counsel for the Plaintiff, Michael Obernesser, Esq. Mr. Obernesser indicated the Plaintiff does not object to this Motion. WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Defendants John Hyatt, Robert Fahey, Betty Fulton, Paul Carreras, Connie Davis, Ken Maestas, Joseph Garcia, and David Archuleta respectfully request this Court grant them leave to file a reply brief in support of motion for summary judgment in excess of ten (10) pages and accept the contemporaneously filed Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment for filing with the Court, and for all other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. Dated this 24th day of October, 2007. Respectfully submitted,

s/ Andrew D. Ringel Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. Hall & Evans, L.L.C. 1125 17th Street, Suite 600 Denver, CO 80202-2052 (303) 628-3300 Fax: (303) 293-3238 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

3

Case 1:01-cv-01315-REB-CBS

Document 157

Filed 10/24/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF) I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 24th day of October, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: Dennis W. Hartley, Esq. Michael K. Obernesser, Esq. Dennis W. Hartley, P.C. 1749 South 8th Street, Suite 5 Colorado Springs, CO 80906 [email protected]

s/Loree Trout, Secretary Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. Hall & Evans, L.L.C. 1125 17th Street, Suite 600 Denver, CO 80202-2052 303-628-3300 Fax: 303-293-3238 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

H:\Users\RINGELA\colorado\Baldauf\gnplead\motion to exceed page limit-SJ Reply.doc

4