Summary
concluding that a recipient of state support may not discriminate in any of its activities
Summary of this case from Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County v. County of SonomaOpinion
No. 05-01597 EDL.
May 2, 2008
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STRIKE
On September 19, 2007, the Court issued a pretrial and trial scheduling order setting out a summary judgment briefing schedule. Although not explicit in the Court's order, the Court contemplated that there would be four briefs on summary judgment: an opening brief from Plaintiffs, a cross-motion and opposition brief from Defendants, an opposition and reply from Plaintiffs and a reply from Defendants. Nothing in the Court's Order prohibited the parties from seeking an enlargement of the page limits permitted under the Local Rules.
On April 22 and April 23, 2008, Defendants filed four briefs: three Motions for Summary Judgment and one opposition to Plaintiff's previously-filed Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs argue that two of the Motions for Summary Judgment should be stricken and that Defendants should file a consolidated brief, or in the alternative, Plaintiffs should be given additional time to respond to Defendants' motions.
After Defendants' motions were filed, the Court received a letter from counsel explaining that counsel had technical difficulties in filing documents on the deadline of April 22, 2008, and consequently filed some documents in the early morning hours of April 23, 2008. Plaintiffs argue in their administrative motion that Defendants have not established excusable neglect for failing to file their motions by April 22, 2008. The Court is not convinced, and in any case, Plaintiffs have shown no prejudice arising from having Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion and one of Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment filed at 1:18 a.m. and 3:27 a.m. on April 23, 2008, rather than late in the evening on April 22, 2008. Indeed, the Court hopes that Plaintiffs' counsel were sleeping peacefully.
The Court declines to strike Defendants' motions. Although the Court had not expected multiple motions, the Court would have been amenable to granting a request for a reasonable enlargement of the page limits in the Local Rules. Furthermore, allowing additional time for Defendants to file a consolidated brief would only aggravate the delay in this case.
However, the Court will grant Plaintiffs additional time to respond to Defendants' multiple motions. No later than June 3, 2008, Plaintiffs shall file one consolidated opposition and reply brief of no more than 75 pages. No later than June 17, 2008, Defendants shall file one consolidated reply brief of no more than 45 pages. Counsel, of course, need not use all of the allotted pages, as the Court would prefer shorter briefs. The Court is unavailable on July 8, 2008 and July 15, 2008 for a hearing on this matter. Accordingly, a hearing is specially set for July 24, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.