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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

40 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4429 Facsimile (602) 262-5747 Telephone (602) 262-5311 Stephen M. Bressler (State Bar No. 009032) [email protected] Ann-Martha Andrews (State Bar No. 012616) [email protected] Scott M. Bennett (State Bar No. 022350) [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants UnumProvident Corporation and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) UNUMProvident Corporation and Provident ) ) Life and Accident Insurance Company, ) ) Defendants. ) ) )

9 Brett D. Leavey, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

No. CIV-02-2281-PHX-SMM MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT

Defendants Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company and UnumProvident

18 Corporation respectfully request the Court's permission to exceed the page limit for their 19 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Renewed Motion for Judgment as a 20 Matter of Law or, in the alternative, Motion for a New Trial and/or Remittitur.1 The 21 defendants request permission to file a brief of up to 26 pages. 22 In this one brief, the defendants are filing and arguing two motions ­ the renewed 23 Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law and the Rule 59 motion for a new trial 24 and/or remittitur. Separate legal standards apply to each motion, and each standard must 25 be fully analyzed and discussed. Moreover, the Rule 59 motion has several parts ­ it 26 relates to the jury's finding of liability for bad faith, the jury's finding of liability for 27
1 By order dated October 21, 28 separately from their motion. 2005, the defendants are submitting their memorandum

Case 2:02-cv-02281-SMM

Document 237

Filed 11/08/2005

Page 1 of 3

1685774.1

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

punitive damages, the amount of the award of damages for emotional distress, and the amount of the award of punitive damages. All of these require separate analysis, including analysis under United States Constitutional law. If defendants filed the motions separately, they would arguably be entitled to 34 pages under Local Rule 7.2(e). A consolidated brief seems to make more sense. The defendants have been working to ensure that the brief is as concise as possible, and believe they will be able to file a consolidated brief of 26 pages or less. RESPECFULLY SUBMITTED this 8th day of November, 2005. LEWIS AND ROCA LLP

By s/Ann-Martha Andrews Stephen M. Bressler Ann-Martha Andrews Scott M. Bennett Attorneys for Defendants UnumProvident Corporation and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company

Case 2:02-cv-02281-SMM

Document 237 2 Filed 11/08/2005

Page 2 of 3

1685774.1

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
Case 2:02-cv-02281-SMM

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 8, 2005, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Steven Dawson Anita Rosenthal Dawson & Rosenthal 6586 Highway 179 Suite B-2 Sedona, Arizona 86351 Attorneys for Plaintiff Gregg H. Temple Gregg H. Temple, P.C. 4835 East Cactus Road Suite 2 25 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254-4196 Attorneys for Plaintiff Thomas L. Hudson Danielle D. Janitch Osborn Maledon, P.A. 2929 North Central Avenue Suite 2100 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794 Attorneys for Plaintiff

s/Roxann Draper

Document 237 3 Filed 11/08/2005

Page 3 of 3

1685774.1