Opinion
CV-21-01917-PHX-DJH
05-01-2024
Mark E Stuart, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Scottsdale, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa, United States District Judge
Plaintiffs Mark and Virginia Stuart (“Plaintiffs”) have filed an Amended Second “Request to Exceed the Page Limitations of LRCiv 7.2(e) and File a Twenty-four (24) Page Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. 63). Plaintiffs lodged their proposed Response (Doc. 64), which contains a five-page statement of facts and eighteen pages of legal analysis. Plaintiffs represent they “have made every effort to make their response as short as possible. However, under the current page limit, Plaintiff[s are] unable to present its arguments in sufficient detail to permit their full and careful consideration.” (Doc. 63 at 3). Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' request, arguing that this Court has previously denied Plaintiffs' first request for excess pages should do same as to their second request. (Doc. 65 at 1 (citing Doc. 31)).
The matter is fully briefed. Defendants filed a Response (Doc. 65) and Plaintiffs filed a Reply (Doc. 66).
Defendants also argue Plaintiffs' lodged proposed Response is improper because, contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), they seek to rely on matters outside of the pleadings. (Doc. 65 at 2). However, such arguments go to the merits of Plaintiffs' lodged proposed Response and should be made in Defendants' reply brief.
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2 provides a response to a motion may not exceed seventeen pages. LRCiv 7.2(e)(1). In its June 29, 2022, Order (Doc. 31), the Court denied Plaintiffs first request for thirty-five pages for a response to a motion to dismiss-i.e., an extra eighteen pages-under Local Rule 7.2 and held Plaintiffs to the seventeen-page limit. Here, however, the Court finds Plaintiffs' request for an extra seven pages is reasonable given Plaintiffs' representations that they must address abstention, claim, and issue preclusion doctrines and “do not have the skill or knowledge to respond to defendants arguments with fewer pages.” (Doc. 63 at 3). Plaintiffs add that they “don't understand jurisdictional factual issues, so they need extra pages to be certain that they have covered all of the correct bases.” (Id.) Because the Court finds a seven-page extension is reasonable under these circumstances, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Amended Second “Request to Exceed the Page Limitations of LRCiv 7.2(e) and File a Twenty-four (24) Page Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. 63) is GRANTED. The Clerk is kindly directed to file the Response currently lodged at Doc. 64.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that, in accordance with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(d), Defendants may reply to Plaintiffs' Lodged Response (Doc. 64) within seven (7) days of the issuance of this Order.