Opinion
Case No. 8:04-cv-492-T-17EAJ.
August 1, 2006
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 34) or Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Issues of Material Fact (Docket No. 35) both filed on February 23, 2006 (Docket No. 39) and the response thereton (Docket No. 40).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Pamala D. Abrams, is an employee of the James A. Haley Medical Center, a Veteran's hospital and is bringing suit against Defendant, Anthony J. Principi, Agency Head of the United States Department of Veteran's Affairs that maintains said hospital, Plaintiff's employer. Plaintiff is bringing suit claiming disability discrimination under § 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794a, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1977a and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Docket No. 6), filed on July 9, 2004, states that she had held the position of a light-duty Licensed Practical Nurse, LPN, in the Occupational Health Section of the hospital from January 1992-August 2001 when her supervisor at the hospital advised her she would need to take on a different position as a telephone operator. Plaintiff has not returned to work since being advised of this new position and is bringing suit against Defendant seeking damages and reassignment to her former position or an equivalent one in compliance with the Rehabilitation Act. Defendant filed its Answer (Docket No. 8) on August 9, 2004. Defendant then filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 19) and its Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 20-1) on November 15, 2005. In response, on February 23, 2006, Plaintiff filed her Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 34-1) and her Statement of Disputed Issues of Material Fact (Docket No. 35-1). Consequently, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Strike either Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 34-1) or Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Issues of Material Fact (Docket No. 35-1) on March 11, 2006 (Docket No. 39). On March 24, 2006, Plaintiff then filed its Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike (Docket No. 40).
DISCUSSION
Under Local Rule 3.01(c) of the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida, no party may submit a memorandum of law in excess of twenty (20) pages to the Court for review. Additionally, a recent decision, binding on this court, from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by The Honorable James S. Moody, Jr. found "counsel may not circumvent this rule by separately filing a motion and memorandum in support thereof." Sommers v. Pediatric Services of America, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28253 (M.D. Fla. 2005). The Court finds this decision persuasive. However, it is within the Court's discretion to allow a memorandum to be in excess of twenty (20) pages if it is within the interest of justice and can not be revised to be of shorter length. Even though it is a widely accepted standard that the Statement of Facts should be included in Memoranda, Plaintiff's counsel has separated the Memorandum from the Statement Facts and formatted the Statement of Facts in a space-consuming manner, thus causing the twenty (20) page limit to be exceeded by seven (7) pages, including signatures. Plaintiff would have been able to stay within the twenty (20) page limit by changing the format of the document slightly to rectify some spacing issues, and the Court does not find Plaintiff to be trying to "circumvent this rule" (Id.) in order to overwhelm the Court with extraneous information. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion to Strike (Docket No. 39) be DENIED and the Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and the Statement of Disputed Issues of Material Fact will be accepted for review.