Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6

Terry Goddard Attorney General Michele L. Forney, Bar No. 019775 Assistant Attorney General 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2997 Telephone: (602) 542-4951 Fax: (602) 542-7670 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants

7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI Document 183 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 1 of 2

Timothy Lee Ward, No. CV 03-2159 PHX ROS (JRI) Plaintiff, v. Sgt. Carr, et al., Defendants. DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND PAGE LIMITATIONS/MOTION FOR HEARING [DKT. 177] (Expedited Ruling Requested)

Defendants Carr and Stewart respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Page Limitations/Motion for Hearing (dkt. 177). Plaintiff requested an enlargement of the page limits from 17 pages to 51 pages, based on his comparison of his handwritten word count with Defendants' type-written word count. In general, Defendants have no objection to a reasonable enlargement of the page limit. However, other facts may be relevant to the Court's decision on this issue. As reflected by the Court's docket, on July 30, 2008, Plaintiff has already filed his Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, which contained 42 pages (dkt. 180 and 181). On July 29, 2008, undersigned counsel and Plaintiff spoke while waiting for the status conference (see dkt. 182) with the Magistrate and afterwards. Plaintiff notified undersigned counsel that he was unable to complete the legal argument section in his

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Response to the motion for summary judgment, yet filed his Response anyway in order to comply with the July 28, 2008 deadline (see dkt. 176). When the conversation ended, it was not clear whether Plaintiff intended to file an amended response, which undersigned counsel assumes would be longer than the 42-page response already filed. The parties were unable to address this issue with the Magistrate due to the technical difficulties which prevented the status conference from occurring. (Dkt. 182.) At this time, Defendants' reply to the Motion for Summary Judgment is due on August 15, 2008. Because the possibility of an amended response from Plaintiff exists and in an effort to avoid having to file two replies, Defendants join in Plaintiff's motion for a hearing or telephonic status conference to determine what should be done. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of August, 2008. Terry Goddard Attorney General s/Michele L. Forney Michele L. Forney Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants Original e-filed this 1st day of August, 2008, with: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of Arizona 401 West Washington Street, SPC 1 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118 Copy mailed the same date to:

22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-02159-ROS-JRI

Timothy Lee Ward, #148256 ASPC - Eyman - Rynning Unit P.O. Box 3100 Florence, AZ 85232-3100 s/Colleen S. Jordan Secretary to: Michele L. Forney IDS04-0306/RSK:G04-20640 #260878 2
Document 183 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 2 of 2