Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01984/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01984-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Billy Taylor, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Horizon Distributors, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1984-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant has filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s memorandum of law in opposition

to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. #99. As part of this motion, Defendant

requests reasonable attorneys’ fees. Id. Plaintiff has responded to the motion to strike

(Dkt. #100) and filed a motion to allow Plaintiff an extension of the page limit. Dkt. #101.

Defendant has also filed a motion for an extension of time to file a reply in support of its

motion for summary judgment. Dkt. #102. 

Local Rule 7.2(e) states that a response brief “shall not exceed seventeen (17) pages.”

L.R. Civ. 7.2(e). Plaintiff has filed a 67-page response to Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment. Dkt. #95. Because Plaintiff’s response blatantly violates the Court’s rules and far

surpasses the number of pages warranted for this response, the Court will grant Defendant’s

motion to strike. Plaintiff shall file an amended response that complies with the rules on or

before April 24, 2009. The Court notes that Plaintiff has already been granted two

extensions of time to file this response. Dkt. ## 91, 94. Plaintiff is advised to comply with

Case 2:07-cv-01984-DGC Document 106 Filed 04/14/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

the above deadline because the Court will not be inclined to grant another extension. The

Court will deny Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees.

Defendant’s counsel called the Court’s staff on April 10, 2009 to inquire whether

Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply would be granted. The Court’s

staff informed counsel that an extension would be granted. Defendant shall file a reply to

Plaintiff’s amended response by May 8, 2009. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion to strike (Dkt. #99) is granted as set forth in this order.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the page limit (Dkt. #101) is denied.

3. Plaintiff shall file an amended response that complies with the page limit by

April 24, 2009.

4. Defendant’s motion for extension of time (Dkt. #102) is granted. Defendant

shall file a reply by May 8, 2009. 

DATED this 13th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-01984-DGC Document 106 Filed 04/14/09 Page 2 of 2