Opinion
2:21-cv-529-JLB-KCD
01-25-2024
JORGE SANGUINETTI, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN RAMBOSK, COLLIER COUNTY, ADAM DILLMAN, JOHN SCADUTO, DAVID DRUCKS, MICHAEL PUKA and DAVID CRISP, JR., Defendants.
ORDER
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
This case is before the Court on several motions concerning Plaintiff's briefing in opposition to summary judgment. (Doc. 193, Doc. 194, Doc. 195.) Cutting to the chase, Plaintiff filed two briefs that exceed the allowable page limit and contain an improper font. He also responded to Defendants' statement of undisputed facts through an exhibit, which is prohibited under the Court's case management order. (See Doc. 38 at 4.) Citing these defects, Defendants seek “an Order striking [the] Responses” and directing Plaintiff to “fix the deficiencies within a short timeframe.” (Doc. 193 at 5-6.)
Plaintiff has responded to Defendants' motion with two of his own. (Doc. 194, Doc. 195.) He asks for leave to amend his response briefs “to comply with Local Rule 1.08 and 3.01(b).” (Doc. 195 at 7.)
In total, the parties have submitted twenty-six pages of briefing on what amounts to a simple issue that is undeserving of such time and attention. This dispute could have (and should have) been resolved with an agreed motion for Plaintiff to resubmit his briefing in compliance with the Court's requirements. So that is what the Court will now ORDER:
1. Counsel is directed to review the Court's local rules and orders concerning summary judgment briefing.
2. Plaintiff may then refile his opposition briefs (Doc. 194, Doc. 195), ensuring compliance with the Court's requirements. Any updated briefing must be filed on or before January 29, 2024.
3. The deadline for Defendants to reply is extended to fourteen days after Plaintiff's updated briefs are docketed.
4. The pending motions (Doc. 193, Doc. 194, Doc. 195) are denied as moot in light of the relief ordered above.