Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02096-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

Arizona Nutritional Supplements, Inc., an

Arizona corporation,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Protient, Inc., a Delaware corporation; et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2096-PHX-LOA

ORDER

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a responsive brief longer than the Local Rules’ 17-

page limitation to Defendants’ pending motion that essentially seeks to preclude Plaintiff’s

expert from testifying for failure to meet the Daubert standard and analysis.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Page Limitation (docket # 78) contends that due to

“the large number of claims at issue in the Motion, [Plaintiff] “need[s] to cite sufficient

factual background” and “to set forth sufficient legal analysis so as to advise the Court as to

why the relief requested therein is unwarranted” and “to separately address Defendant’s

motion in limine.” (Id. at 1-2) Plaintiff fails to inform the Court whether it wishes two

additional pages or twenty.

After reviewing the subject motion and Defendant’s motion that seeks to

preclude the opinions of Plaintiff’s “microbiology expert, Alice Weissfeld, [as] unreliable

and inadmissible,” the Court does not find that more than 17 pages is reasonably necessary

Case 2:05-cv-02096-LOA Document 80 Filed 05/25/07 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 -

to adequately address this single issue and exceed the page limitations set forth in L.R.Civ.

7.2. Briefs should be just that; more is not synonymous with better.

Good cause not appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Page Limitation (docket #

78) is DENIED.

DATED this 25th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02096-LOA Document 80 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 2