Free Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages - 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 Timothy Lee Ward, Plaintiff -vsKarr, et al., Defendants CV-03-2159-PHX-ROS (JRI) ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Under consideration is Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Page Limitations, filed July 18, 2008 (#177). Plaintiff reports that his draft response to the pending motion for summary judgment far exceeds the 17 page limit applicable to such responses, but that the length results from his having to handwrite his response. He estimates his words per page of his handwritten response at one third of Defendant's typewritten motion, and thus does not expect his response to exceed the number of words in the motion. Thus, he requests leave to file a response of 51 handwritten pages. Plaintiff requests, in the alternative, a hearing to resolve his concerns. In light of the expansion granted, the request for a hearing is moot. In the meantime, Plaintiff filed a response of some 42 pages on July 30, 2008 (#180). On August 1, 2008, Defendants responded, voicing no objection to the motion, noting that Plaintiff had already filed a response, and reporting that Plaintiff had advised defense counsel that the response was incomplete and filed in light of the expiring deadline. Defendants seek clarification to know how to reply. Plaintiff has not replied. Local Civil Rule 7.1(e) does not distinguish between handwritten and typewritten memoranda. The purpose of the rule is to avoid verboseness and to encourage the parties to sharpen their arguments. Plaintiff's proposed limit for a handwritten document is within the spirit of that rule. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file an amended response, and a deadline for a reply will be set.
Document 1851 - Filed 08/15/2008 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-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

In light of the expansions and extensions granted herein, and the schedule established, it does not appear that a hearing is required. Also under consideration is Plaintiff's Motion for District Court Assistance, filed July 23, 2008 (#178). Plaintiff complains that as a result of a prison relocation, he lost access to his legal materials. He also complains that he has had difficulties obtaining access to the prison library to make copies of his response to the pending motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff does not suggest that he will be unable to resolve his difficulties, only that it will take time. Plaintiff notes his response is due shortly. Indeed, it was due July 28, 2008, on Plaintiff's first request for an extension. (See Order 7/2/8, #176.) Defendants have provided notice that in response to inquiries with prison officials, defense counsel was advised the Plaintiff is in custody of ten legal books, the most allowed, and would be provided to exchange the books in his custody. Although briefing on the motion is not complete, the Court finds that further briefing is not necessary to a fair adjudication of the motion. The Court finds good cause for an extension of time to allow Plaintiff to obtain access to his legal materials and copies of his response, etc. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that further extensions are unlikely. In the meantime, Defendants filed on August 12, 2008, a Motion to Extend Time to Reply, seeking an enlargement of the time for them to reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. Defendants cite as cause the pending discovery disputes and Plaintiff's intent to file an amended response. Although briefing on the motion is not complete, the Court finds that further briefing is not necessary to a fair adjudication of the motion. Plaintiff has not sought to delay a response to the motion for summary judgment to complete discovery. Accordingly, the delays in the telephonic conference are not relevant. However, in light of the grant of time to Plaintiff to file an amended response, the Court will grant the motion and a deadline for a reply will be established based upon the deadline for or filing of such amendment. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Page Limitations, filed July 18, 2008 (#177) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended response to
Document 1852 - Filed 08/15/2008 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-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

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 22, 2008 (#159) of not more than 51 pages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing, filed July 18, 2008 (#177) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for District Court Assistance, filed July 23, 2008 (#178) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have ten days from the filing of this Order to file his amended response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 22, 2008 (#159). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Extend Time to Reply, filed August 12, 2008 (#184) is GRANTED to the extent of the relief provided herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have 15 days from the filing of such amended response, or if no such amended response is timely filed then 35 days from the filing of this Order, to reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 22, 2008 (#159).

DATED: August 15, 2008
S:\Drafts\OutBox\03-2159-177o Order 08 07 28 re MExceed MExtend.wpd

_____________________________________ JAY R. IRWIN United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI

Document 1853 - Filed 08/15/2008 -

Page 3 of 3