United States District Court, D. New Mexico
KARRI DALTON as the Personal Representative of the Estate of NIKKI BASCOM, deceased, and Next Friend to M.B., a minor child, and A.C., a minor child, Plaintiff,
TOWN OF SILVER CITY, ex rel. SILVER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, GRANT COUNTY, ex rel. GRANT COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, SILVER CITY POLICE CHIEF ED REYNOLDS, CAPTAIN RICKY VILLALOBOS, THE ESTATE OF MARCELLO CONTRERAS, DEPUTY JACOB VILLEGAS, DEPUTY FRANK GOMEZ, and DEPUTY ADAM ARELLANO, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF PAGE LIMITS FOR THEIR RESPONSE BRIEF TO DOCUMENT 29 AND
MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Opposed
Motion for Extension of Page Limits for Their Response Brief
to Document 29 and Exhibits Thereto (Doc. 41, filed
5/11/18). Having reviewed the parties' briefs
and applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiff's
Motion is well-taken, and is, therefore, GRANTED IN
PART as to the number of exhibits requested,
and otherwise DENIED as to the specific
number of pages requested.
has requested leave to exceed the twenty-four-page response
brief limit and fifty-page exhibit limit, so that he may file
an additional twenty-one pages of briefing, and an additional
thirty-three pages of exhibits. Doc. 41. Plaintiff contends
that forty-five pages of briefing and eighty-three pages of
exhibits are necessary to fully respond to Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29). Plaintiff attached the
extended response and exhibits to the Motion. Docs. 41-1,
41-2. Defendants have indicated that they are not opposed to
a reasonable extension of an additional twelve pages of
briefing and additional twenty-five pages of exhibits.
Defendants maintain that the excess material Plaintiff plans
to submit will not assist the Court's decision making and
will be unduly time-consuming for all parties, including the
to D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.5, motions are limited to twenty-seven
pages, response briefs are limited to twenty-four pages, and
reply briefs are limited to twelve pages. As the local rules
do not provide for page extensions by agreement between the
parties, the requesting party must move the Court for a page
extension. Pursuant to D.N.M.LR-Civ. 10.5, exhibits attached
to briefs are limited to fifty pages, but the parties may
agree amongst themselves to extend the exhibit limit without
leave from the Court. The district court has discretion to
restrict filings and briefs, as long as such restraint does
not impose “an unreasonable limitation on the
information available to the court” in reaching its
decision. Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 328 F.3d 1212, 1228
(10th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Nacchio,
555 F.3d 1234, 1250 (10th Cir. 2009).
reference the factors in Navajo Health Foundation-Sage
Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Burwell, 110 F.Supp.3d 1140,
1181-82 (D.N.M. 2015) (Browning, J.), in support of their
response. While the Burwell analysis is not binding
on this Court, some of the factors are helpful for
consideration on this issue. First, the Court considers the
fact that Defendants oppose Plaintiff's request, and that
Defendants have extended a generous offer to Plaintiff to not
oppose an additional twelve pages of briefing. Defendants did
not request an extension for pages or exhibits. Additionally,
the Court notes that the issues in this case are not
unusually complex for a case of this nature, and are issues
that the page limits imposed by the local rule are designed
to encompass. Finally, the extended brief submitted by
Plaintiff as an exhibit contains information that is
cumulative, both in the “Response to Defendants'
‘Undisputed' Material Facts” section and in
the “Additional Material Facts” section, such
that numerous facts are repeated. It is apparent to the Court
that if Plaintiff merely tightened the language and
presentation of material in the response brief, Plaintiff
could easily satisfy a thirty-six-page limit. Furthermore,
Plaintiff has included a six-page background section, and
while Plaintiff protests that Defendants included a four-page
background section, the Court notes that Defendants'
Motion was under the page limit. Thus, the Court believes
that the offer extended by Defendants to not oppose a
thirty-six-page limit embodies a reasonable restriction in
this matter, and the Court will accordingly allow Plaintiff
to file an additional twelve pages of briefing, for
thirty-six pages total. As Plaintiff's counsel prepares
the response brief, the Court encourages Plaintiff's
counsel not to lose focus on the concept of brevity.
the exhibits, however, the Court finds that the information
contained in the attached depositions, police reports,
affidavits, and the like, is useful to the Court's
decision making at the summary judgment stage. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c). As such, the Court will grant leave to Plaintiff to
file the full eighty-three pages of exhibits.
these reasons, Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Extension
of Page Limits for Their Response Brief to Document 29 and
Exhibits Thereto (Doc. 41) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is
further ordered that Plaintiff's response brief is due
TWO (2) WEEKS from the date of entry of this
Order. Defendants' reply is due TWO (2)
WEEKS after Plaintiff's response brief is filed.