Free Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

SRM

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 Charles McManus, Plaintiff -vsCarl B. Dodge, et al., Defendant(s) CV-03-2327-PHX-MHM (JI) ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

On June 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Exceed the Seventeen Page Limit (#81) and lodged a proposed Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 12, 2005 (#53). That lodged response consists of a Response memorandum of 10 pages, a separate Statement of Facts of 4 pages, a Declaration of 6 pages, and 77 pages of Exhibits. Defendants have filed an Objection (#80) to the Response, on the basis that they did not receive the referenced exhibits. They do not respond to the motion for leave to exceed page limitations. Although no responses to the motion or objection have been filed, and the time to respond has not yet run, the Court finds that neither a response nor a reply are necessary to a fair adjudication of these matters. As to the Motion to Exceed, the Court notes that Local Civil Rule 7.2(e) applies a seventeen page limit on a "response including its supporting memorandum . . . exclusive of attachments and any required statement of facts." Petitioner's Response is only 10 pages in length. Accordingly, leave to file this response is not necessary. Accordingly, the motion will be denied as moot, and the Clerk will be directed to file the lodged documents. At the same time, the Court notes that although the filed copy of Plaintiff's documents includes his exhibits, the chambers' copies of the Response, etc. do not, as required by Local Civil Rule 5.4. Thus, it is not surprising that Respondents' copy did not. Defendants cannot be expected to reply until served with the entire response. In the interests of having this now
Document 82 1 - Filed 07/03/2006 Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

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

ancient motion resolved promptly, the Clerk will be directed to provide Defendants with an electronic copy, and Plaintiff will be directed to simultaneously provide paper copies to Defendants and chambers. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed the Seventeen Page Limit, filed June 27, 2006 (#81) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of Facts, Declaration, and Exhibits lodged on June 27, 2006. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court email to counsel for Defendants copies of Plaintiff's Exhibits lodged on June 27, 2006. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve on Defendants and mail to the undersigned's chambers, copies of Plaintiff's Exhibits lodged on June 27, 2006, and within ten days of the filing of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a separate Certificate of Service reflecting such service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have fifteen days from the filing of this Order to reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment filed October 12, 2005 (#53).

DATED: July 3, 2006
S:\Drafts\OutBox\03-2327-81o Order 06 06 30 re MExceed.wpd

_____________________________________ JAY R. IRWIN United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

Document 82 2 - Filed 07/03/2006 -

Page 2 of 2