IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 16, 2013
SHEPARD JOHNSON PLAINTIFF,
CHESTER MITCHELL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the undersigned and currently set for hearing on January 31, 2013 is defendants' motion for summary judgment (dkt. 245), plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (dkt. 258), and defendant Berrocal and Arosemena's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (dkt. 229). Plaintiff is subject to a 25 page limit on any filing he enters in this matter. Dkt. 169. The court granted plaintiff relief from and extended that limit to 35 pages for purposes of filing his opposition to and cross-motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 256. Plaintiff now seeks additional relief from the 25 page limit in responding to defendant Berrocal and Arosemena's motion to dismiss. Dkt. 266.
Plaintiff claims that he will require approximately 35 pages in which to address the arguments raised in the motion to dismiss. Id. Although plaintiff is correct in pointing out that defendants Berrocal and Arosemena raise a total of ten arguments between them, he ignores that they have done so in a motion limited to 12 pages. Dkt. 229. Plaintiff has not explained why his response to such a motion will require nearly three times as much space as the motion itself and the court cannot imagine that it will.
Accordingly, plaintiff's request (dkt. 266) to exceed the 25 page limit imposed by the March 2, 2012 order is HEREBY DENIED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.