Free Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. Meritage Homes Corporation, a Maryland Corporation, formerly d/b/a Meritage Corporation,
1 Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 452-2 Filed 03/06/2007 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Meritage Homes Corporation, a Maryland Corporation, formerly d/b/a Meritage Corporation, Hancock-MTH Builders, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Hancock-MTH Communities, Inc., an Arizona corporation, and currently d/b/a Meritage Homes Construction, Inc., an Arizona corporation, and Meritage Homes of Arizona, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Ricky Lee Hancock and Brenda Hancock, husband and wife; Gregory S. Hancock and Linda Hancock, husband and wife, Rick Hancock Homes L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company; RLH Development, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company; and J2H2, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company, Defendants. _________________________________________ Rick and Brenda Hancock, Defendants, Counterclaimants and Third-Party Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. CV-04-0384-PHX-ROS PROPOSED ORDER

(Assigned to the Hon. Roslyn O. Silver)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hancock-MTH Builders, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Hancock-MTH Communities, Inc., an Arizona corporation, and currently d/b/a Meritage Homes Construction, Inc., an Arizona corporation, and Meritage Homes of Arizona, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Steven J. Hilton and Suzanne Hilton, husband and wife; John R. Landon and Debi Landon, husband and wife; Scott Keeffe and Vicky Keeffe, husband and wife; Roger Zetah and Jane Doe Zetah, husband and wife; and James Arneson and Zane Arneson, husband and wife, Third-Party Defendants.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiffs' Motion to Exceed Page Limits in Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants Rick and Brenda Hancock, Rick Hancock Homes, Inc., and RLH Development, Inc.'s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Plaintiffs were in possession of Rick Hancock Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment when they contacted Defendants about filing a consolidated Response. On February 23, 2007, Plaintiffs did not file a consolidated Response. In addition, the two separate responsive pleadings filed, significantly exceeded the page limitations of this Court. Rule 7.2(e). Local

Plaintiffs' conclusory claim that Defendants forced their hand to exceed this

Court's page limitation rule is not the basis for good cause. Plaintiffs have had Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in their possession since December 20, 2006 ­ at least 10 days prior to contacting the Defendants about filing a consolidated Response.

2 Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 452-2 Filed 03/06/2007 Page 2 of 2