Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00255/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00255-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

30

31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN JAMES STROTHER

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DAVID S. BALDWIN, et al.,

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:16-CV-00255-TLN-CKD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO STRIKE

Defendants David S. Baldwin, Michael McCord, the United States Department of Defense, and 

the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (“DFAS”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) have 

filed a motion to strike Plaintiff Bryan James Strother’s (“Plaintiff”) opposition to the Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff has filed an opposition, (ECF No. 20), and Defendants have 

filed a reply. (ECF No. 22.)

Having considered the motion to strike, Plaintiff’s opposition, and the Defendants’ reply, and 

based on the entire record before the Court, good cause appears to grant the motion to strike. Plaintiff’s 

opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss exceeds the page limitations set by the Court in its 

Standing Order and in the Order issued in this case on February 10, 2016. (See ECF No. 2 at 4, ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff did not seek leave from the Court to exceed the page limits. Although Plaintiff avers that his 

opposition is only two pages over the limit, upon review Plaintiff’s briefing clearly exceeds the Court’s 

page limits set forth in this Court’s Standing Order. The page limit set within the Order encompasses 

any and all statements of fact and summaries of law. The page limit is not restricted to what the party 

Case 2:16-cv-00255-TLN-CKD Document 26 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 2
2 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO STRIKE

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

30

31

deems to be his or her argument. As such, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Strike. (ECF No. 

18.) However, in an effort to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to respond to Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss, the Court hereby extends the deadline for Plaintiff to file an opposition to October 27, 2016. 

Defendants may file a reply on or before November 4, 2016. The Court will decide this matter on the 

submissions by the parties and will not hold a hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00255-TLN-CKD Document 26 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 2