County of Sacramento v. Everest National Ins. Co. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, No. 2:19-cv-00263-MCE-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Through this action, Defendant Everest National Insurance Company 18 (“Defendant” or “Everest National”) moved this Court for an order extending the page 19 limit for its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of Motion for Summary 20 Judgment from a 20-page limit to 50 pages. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s 21 Ex Parte Application to Extend Page Limit. ECF No. 48 (“Application”). Plaintiff County 22 of Sacramento (“Plaintiff”) timely opposed. Opp’n, ECF No. 49. For the reasons set forth 23 below, Defendant’s Application is GRANTED in part. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 Plaintiff initiated the underlying suit on February 11, 2019, claiming that, inter alia, 2 Defendant was in breach of contract as related to an insurance relationship. ECF No. 1. 3 In the instant Motion, Defendant requests an extension of the page limit for a motion for 4 summary judgment, citing the potential complexity of an insurance indemnity action. 5 Application at 2. Defendant avers that indemnity actions are more complicated than 6 many insurance claims (e.g., duty to defend) because there must be a determination on 7 the actual basis of underlying liability. Application at 2 (citing Armstrong World Indus., 8 Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 45 Cal. App. 4th 1, 31 (1996)). Therefore, Defendant 9 claims that the pending motion for summary judgment “will depend, in large part, on the 10 evidence, factual findings and liability established in the Underlying Action.” Application 11 at 2. For its part, Plaintiff “maintains that a 30-page limit is sufficient[,] and a 50-page 12 limit is unnecessary to address legal issues in dispute in this case.” Opp’n at 1. 13 District courts will consider extending page limits for motions, especially under 14 “exceptional circumstances.” See, e.g., ABCDE Operating, LLC v. City of Detroit, 254 F. 15 Supp. 3d 931, 936 n.3 (E.D. Mich. 2017). However, as a sister court in the Central 16 District recently reminded its litigants, judicial resources in our respective districts are 17 “stretched thin; and this is not the Court’s only case.” BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., 18 No. CV 18-1844-GW-KSX, 2019 WL 11670622, at *37 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2019). 19 Extensive motions may jeopardize “securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive 20 determination of this action.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). In this particular matter, the 21 docket already contains various Defendant requests to modify the case schedule. See, 22 e.g., ECF Nos. 12, 18, 34. With that stated, the Court is persuaded by Plaintiff’s 23 concession that an extension to 30 pages may be sufficient and in the interests of 24 justice. See Opp’n at 1. 25 In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 26 1. Everest National shall be allowed up to thirty (30) pages for its Memorandum 27 Points and Authorities in support of Motion for Summary Judgment. 28 2. Any opposition to said motion may also be up to thirty (30) pages in length; and 1 3. Any reply shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: March 9, 2021 4 □ late JES. tip { AX X - MENTOR UNITED STATES: DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28