Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01429/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01429-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

Michael G. Woods, #058683-0

Deborah A. Byron, #105327

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard

Wayte & Carruth LLP

P.O. Box 28912

5 River Park Place East

Fresno, CA 93720-1501

Telephone: (559) 433-1300

Facsimile: (559) 433-2300

Attorneys for Defendants

PETER G. MEHAS, JAN BIGGS and KEN

CAMPBELL

(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT

TIM NOLT, TIM ALLISON and CHRIS

HUDSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PETER G. MEHAS; JAN BIGGS; KEN

CAMPBELL and DOES 1 through 100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:05-CV- 01429 LJO-SMS

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED

PAGE LIMIT FOR POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AND

ORDER THEREON

DATE: August 27, 2007

 TIME: 8:30 a.m.

COURTROOM: No. 4

Trial Date: October 29, 2007

APPLICATION

I, Deborah Byron, do hereby declare and state:

1. I am a member of the law firm of McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte

& Carruth, LLP, counsel of record herein for Defendants Peter G. Mehas, Jan Biggs and Ken

Campbell, and am duly licensed to practice law before all Courts in the State of California and

before this Court.

2. This application is made for leave to file a reply brief not exceeding 20

pages on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion is 44 pages in length,

utilizes a smaller front and includes 26 pages of factual statements. The brief is accompanied by

370 “disputed material facts” which, to some extent, must be addressed, explained and refuted.

Defendants’ motion was filed on Friday, July 20, 2007, per this Court’s Order of June 26, 2007.

Case 1:05-cv-01429-LJO -SMS Document 65 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 2
Both sides were permitted to file points and authorities in excess of court limits. I am mindful

of this Court’s standing order limiting reply pleadings in summary judgment motions to 10 pages.

However, in this action, it would not be possible to present a meaningful reply in 10 pages. 

 3. Defendants request permission from this Court to file points and authorities

in reply to the opposition to the summary judgment motion not to exceed 20 pages (excluding

face page and tables).

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America

that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration is executed on August 17, 2007, at

Fresno, California.

/s/ Deborah A. Byron_________

Deborah A. Byron

ORDER

Upon ex parte application submitted by Defendants Peter G. Mehas, Jan Biggs and

Ken Campbell, and good cause appearing, leave is hereby granted in favor of Defendants to file

its brief in reply to opposition to summary judgment and/or summary adjudication, not to exceed

20 pages in length (excluding face page and tables). The brief will be succinct and not

unnecessarily repetitive.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01429-LJO -SMS Document 65 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 2