Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_04-cv-00449/USCOURTS-alsd-2_04-cv-00449-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

1

 Review of the Complaint (doc. 1) reflects that plaintiff asserts three due process

claims, as well as state-law claims for breach of contract and fraud. Each due process claim appears to

relate to a discrete set of facts, including one relating to rent changes, another relating to cancellation of

contracts, and a third relating to changes in utility allowance.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

SELMA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT )

CORPORATION, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 04-0449-WS-B

 )

THE SELMA HOUSING AUTHORITY, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendant Selma Housing Authority’s Motion for Leave to

Exceed Page Limitation (doc. 32). In its Motion, defendant seeks leave to file a 50-page principal brief

and a 30-page reply brief in support of its forthcoming Rule 56 motion. As grounds for this request,

defendant asserts that the Complaint involves five causes action1 spanning 12 years, that multiple

protracted depositions have been taken, and that more than 10,000 pages of paper discovery have

been exchanged.

As counsel are aware, Local Rule 7.1(b) imposes a general cap of 30 pages on principal briefs

in support of or in opposition to any motion, and of 15 pages on reply briefs. Those page limitations

exist for good reason, namely to compel litigants to distill the essence of their claims and defenses, to

winnow out and discard their weaker arguments in favor of their stronger ones, to present their

respective positions in a concise manner, and to avoid squandering judicial and litigant resources on

wading through unnecessarily grandiloquent and prolix submissions. The Local Rule is intended to

promote the interests of both litigants and the Court in efficient administration of justice. It has been the

experience of the undersigned that the brief length authorized by LR 7.1(b) is more than sufficient for

Case 2:04-cv-00449-WS-B Document 33 Filed 05/09/05 Page 1 of 2
2

In that regard, the Supreme Court has “recognized on numerous occasions that the

"process of 'winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal and focusing on' those more likely to prevail

... is the hallmark of effective appellate advocacy.” O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 858, 119

S.Ct. 1728 (1999) (citation omitted). The same principles apply to effective trial advocacy.

-2-

the overwhelming majority of even complex civil actions. When counsel exceed those limits, they often

pad their briefs with sprawling, unnecessary bulk at the expense of clarity of reasoning and

cohesiveness of presentation. An unfortunate consequence of this approach is that such briefs

frequently obscure a party’s stronger arguments and the central facts of the matter by camouflaging

them with lesser contentions or extraneous factual recitations, thereby undermining effective advocacy. 

Even worse, the resulting “false trails” infect the entire briefing process, as opposing counsel must then

devote extensive analysis in their brief to rebutting and refuting superfluous arguments that never should

have been made in the first place. The Court must then resolve all of those issues by sifting through an

undifferentiated mass of verbiage in an effort to distinguish wheat from chaff. The system functions far

more efficiently for all concerned if the movant exercises the necessary discipline in the first instance to

submit a tight-knit, focused presentation of facts and legal arguments.2

All of that said, only defendant’s counsel can reasonably evaluate at this time whether the

essential factual and legal issues at stake on summary judgment are so numerous, labyrinthine and

variegated as to require 50 pages of briefing in a principal brief. The Court will defer to movant’s

professional judgment, subject to the important caveat that movant’s principal brief must be crafted in

conformity with the principles set forth herein and may be stricken to the extent it fails to do so. On that

basis, defendant’s request for leave to file a principal brief of up to 50 pages is granted.

Defendant’s request to file a 30-page reply brief is denied as premature. Without the benefit of

non-movant’s opposition brief, the movant cannot possibly assess whether the 15 pages allotted under

LR 7.1 will allow for adequate rebuttal.

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2005.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00449-WS-B Document 33 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 2