Stuart v. Scottsdale, City of ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Mark E Stuart, et al., No. CV-20-00755-PHX-JAT 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 City of Scottsdale, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ request to exceed page limitations in their 16 response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 82). For the following 17 reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ request. 18 On October 7, 2020, the Court held a Rule 16 scheduling conference for the instant 19 case. (Doc. 48). At that conference, the Court set November 27, 2020 as the deadline for 20 Defendants to file any qualified immunity motions. (Doc. 49). Defendants filed the 21 currently pending motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity on November 25, 22 2020. (Doc. 64). On December 7, 2020, Plaintiffs requested an extension of time to January 23 11, 2021, to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 68). The Court 24 granted this request. (Doc. 69). On December 22, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion pursuant 25 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) seeking an additional 90 days to respond to 26 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 74). The Court denied this request 27 noting that it was Plaintiffs who requested the current deadline. (Doc. 81). On January 11, 28 2021, the day of the deadline, Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to file excess pages and 1 a proposed response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment that exceeded the page 2 limits established by Local Rule 7.2(e). (Docs. 82, 83). 3 Local Rule 7.2(e) dictates that “[u]nless otherwise permitted by the Court” a 4 response to summary judgment “may not exceed seventeen (17) pages, exclusive of 5 attachments and any required statement of facts.” LRCiv 7.2(e)(1). Plaintiffs’ proposed 6 response is thirty-eight (38) pages long, more than double the page limit established by 7 Local Rule 7.2(e). (See Doc. 83). The Court additionally notes that Plaintiffs submitted 8 their non-compliant proposed response on the day of the filing deadline. Meaning that, if 9 the Court chose not to grant the filing of additional pages, Plaintiffs would be unable to 10 meet the deadline. This, along with Plaintiffs’ other actions in this case, suggest Plaintiffs 11 are engaging in gamesmanship to win another extension from the Court. (See Doc. 81 at 12 3). They will not receive such an extension. 13 “District Courts have broad discretion in interpreting and applying their local rules.” 14 Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010). While Plaintiffs’ response 15 violates Local Rule 7.2(e), the Court has discretion to accept the response, despite its 16 violation of local rules. See Andrich v. Navient Sols. Inc., No. CV-18-02766-PHX-SMB, 17 2020 WL 1515664, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 30, 2020). Plaintiffs argue that the additional pages 18 are necessary to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because of the 19 numerous grounds upon which summary judgment is sought and the multiple legal 20 standards that must be examined. (See Doc. 82 at 2). The Court agrees that, because of the 21 complexity and number of legal issues in this case, exceeding the seventeen-page limit is 22 warranted here. See Campbell v. Fernando-Sholes, No. CV-05-0880PHXSMM, 2009 WL 23 151200, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 21, 2009) (granting request to exceed the page limit in light of 24 the complexities of the case). Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ request to exceed the 25 page limit here but warns that similar requests for extensions in the future will be met with 26 disfavor. If Plaintiffs require an extension in the future, they should request such an 27 extension well ahead of any applicable deadline. 28 Accordingly, 1 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs request to exceed page limitations (Doc. 82) is 2|| GRANTED. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk’s Office to file Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (lodged at Doc. 83). 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ reply to Plaintiffs’ response is due 6|| by January 28, 2021. 7 Dated this 13th day of January, 2021. 8 ? ' ll _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-