Opinion
Civ. No. 09-1669 (RHK/AJB).
May 20, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte.
The parties in this ERISA case have cross-moved for summary judgment. The Court has conducted an initial review of the parties' moving briefs and notes that the issues raised therein overlap in substantial measure (although not in their entirety). Insofar as each party's arguments for summary judgment have been laid bare, however, the Court does not believe that two additional rounds of briefing (opposing memoranda, followed by replies) under Local Rule 7.1(b) is appropriate.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Each party shall submit a Memorandum in Opposition to the opposing party's Motion for Summary Judgment, and in further support of that party's Motion, in accordance with the previously established deadlines under this Court's Local Rules for opposing Memoranda;
2. Plaintiff and Defendants are each permitted a total of 15,000 words for their opening briefs and their opposition briefs. Lest there be any confusion, this means, based on the parties' Word Count Compliance Certificates, that Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition and in further support of her Motion shall not exceed 3,964 words (15,000 minus 11,036) and Defendants' Memorandum shall not exceed 8,783 words (15,000 minus 6,217); and
3. No Reply Memoranda shall be permitted absent further Order of the Court.