Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cv-02444-REB-PAC

Document 268

Filed 08/04/2005

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 00-cv-2444-REB-PAC KEVIN J. RUTHERFORD, Plaintiff, v. DR. LOUIS CABILING, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO RESUBMIT RESPONSE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION ______________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Kevin Rutherford, by and through his attorneys, and in support of his Unopposed Motion to Resubmit Response Brief In Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and To Exceed Page Limitation, states as follows: 1. Pursuant to D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.1(A), the undersigned hereby certifies

that he has conferred with defendant's counsel regarding the relief sought to this motion and defendant does not oppose the relief requested herein. 2. Pursuant to REB Civ. Practice Standard II.E, "All documents filed with

the court shall be in an Arial 12 point font." 3. Pursuant to REB Civ. Practice Standard V.H.3.a, all response briefs

shall not exceed twenty pages and reply briefs shall not exceed ten pages. 4. These practice standards "may be modified by orders entered in

Case 1:00-cv-02444-REB-PAC

Document 268

Filed 08/04/2005

Page 2 of 5

specific cases." REB Civ. Practice Standard I.A.1. 5. As Dr. Cabiling correctly noted in the Defendant's Reply In Support of

Motion for Summary Judgment, Mr. Rutherford's Response Brief In Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on June 14, 2005, was submitted in Times New Roman font and exceeded the page limitation set by REB Civ. Practice Standard V.H.3.a. 6. Dr. Cabiling's Reply In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (With

Incorporated Legal Authority), filed on August 1, 2005, also exceeded the page limitation set by REB Civ. Practice Standard V.H.3.a. 7. Pursuant to REB Civ. Practice Standard I.A.1, Mr. Rutherford requests

an order of this Court allowing Mr. Rutherford to resubmit his Response Brief In Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment so that it complies with REB Civ. Practice Standard II.E. 8. Pursuant to REB Civ. Practice Standard I.A.1, Mr. Rutherford also

requests an order of this Court granting Mr. Rutherford leave to resubmit a response brief that exceeds the page requirement of REB Civ. Practice Standard V.H.3.a. 9. Mr. Rutherford only wishes to change the font of the response brief, as

filed. Mr. Rutherford will not make any other edits. 10. Mr. Rutherford's response brief, written in Times New Roman font, was

22 pages. Undersigned counsel did not intentionally violate this Court's practice standards; the use of Times New Roman font was not an attempt to skirt the local

-2-

Case 1:00-cv-02444-REB-PAC

Document 268

Filed 08/04/2005

Page 3 of 5

practice standards but was an oversight (similarly made in numerous filings since undersigned counsel entered their appearance on behalf of Mr. Rutherford), as was the excessive length of Mr. Rutherford's response brief. In Arial 12 point font, Mr. Rutherford's response brief would be no more than 24 pages. 11. Mr. Rutherford would be willing to edit his response brief to conform

with the twenty page limit established by REB Civ. Practice Standard V.H.3.a. Counsel for both Mr. Rutherford and Dr. Cabiling agree, however, that such editing would create unnecessary delay and expense and might require Dr. Cabiling to file an additional reply. To prevent this delay and expense, counsel for both Mr. Rutherford and Dr. Cabiling would prefer a decision based upon the response and reply, as filed. 12. Neither order would prejudice the plaintiff or defendant. Both parties

would prefer the motion for summary judgment be decided on the merits and that this Court give full consideration to both Mr. Rutherford's response and Dr. Cabiling's reply. 13. The defendant does not object to this Court's consideration of the

material contained within the excess pages of Mr. Rutherford's response brief. Mr. Rutherford does not object to this Court's consideration of the material contained within the excess pages of Dr. Cabiling's reply brief.

-3-

Case 1:00-cv-02444-REB-PAC

Document 268

Filed 08/04/2005

Page 4 of 5

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Mr. Rutherford respectfully requests this Court grant Mr. Rutherford leave to resubmit his Response Brief In Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in Arial 12 point font and grant Mr. Rutherford leave to exceed the page limitation set by REB Civ. Practice Standard V.H.3.a. Respectfully submitted this 4th day of August 2005. s/ David M. ("Merc") Pittinos D. Sean Velarde David M. ("Merc") Pittinos BURNS, FIGA & WILL, P.C. Plaza Tower One, Suite 1030 6400 South Fiddlers Green Circle Englewood, CO 80111 Telephone: 303-796-2626 FAX: 303-796-2777 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Kevin Rutherford

-4-

Case 1:00-cv-02444-REB-PAC

Document 268

Filed 08/04/2005

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 4th day of August 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing Unopposed Motion to Resubmit Response Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and to Exceed Page Limitation with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses: Daniel Christopher, Esq. David Gerbus, Esq. Molly Walsh, Esq. Kennedy & Christopher P.C. 1050 17th St., #2500 Denver, CO 80265 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Joseph P. Sanchez Assistant Attorney General Litigation Section 1525 Sherman Street 5th Floor Denver, CO 80203 [email protected]

and I hereby certify that I have mailed or served the document or paper to the following non-CM/ECF participants in the manner indicated by the non-participant's name: s/ David M. ("Merc") Pittinos

-5-