United States District Court, D. Nevada
July 24, 2015
TODD ROBBEN, Plaintiff,
CARSON CITY, NEVADA, et al., Defendants.
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendants have filed a renewed motion for summary judgment pursuant to the Court’s previous order (“Renewed Motion”). (Dkt. no 53.) Plaintiff filed a response that is 124 pages in length, not including exhibits. (Dkt. no. 55.) Defendants have moved to strike Plaintiff’s response for exceeding the page limit established under LR 7-4. (Dkt. no. 60.) LR 7-4 provides that motions and opposition briefs must be limited to thirty (30) pages in length unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Plaintiff’s response exceeds LR 7-4’s limit on the length of brief. The Court finds there is no good cause to grant leave to exceed the page limit. Plaintiff should be able to file a response within the 30-page limit. In fact, a longer length brief will be unhelpful and will only further delay resolution of the Renewed Motion. The Court will set oral argument or order supplemental briefing, as it deems necessary, if it needs clarification on any issues raised in the parties’ brief.
It is therefore ordered that Defendants’ motion to strike (dkt. no. 60) is granted. Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ Renewed Motion (dkt. no. 55) will be stricken. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file a response that complies with LR 7-4’s 30-page limit within twenty-one (21) days. The briefing schedule set forth in LR 7-2(e) applies to Defendants’ reply.
It is further ordered that Plaintiffs motion for leave to file sur-reply (dkt. no. 72) is denied as moot.
The Court will not entertain any other filings in connection with Defendants’ Renewed Motion.