Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02567/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02567-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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.

AFS Technologies, Inc.; Kurien and

Prasanna Jacob; Walter and Jane Doe

Barandarian; Kimberly and John Doe

Curtis; Rebecca and Jason Barr; Andi

and John Doe Romano; and the

Argentum Group, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2567-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On July 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to exceed page limit. Doc. 137. He

asserted that he is ready to file a summary judgment motion and needs eight pages more than

the allotted seventeen in order to fully articulate the facts in support of summary judgment.

Id. In an order dated July 14, 2010, the Court denied the motion because Plaintiff had failed

to describe the nature of his summary judgment motion or otherwise explain why 25 pages

are needed to demonstrate that certain undisputed material facts entitle him to judgment as

a matter of law. Doc. 141. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of that order.

Doc. 142. The motion will be denied.

Plaintiff contends that reconsideration is appropriate because he has made a

convincing showing that the Court failed to consider material facts previously presented by

Plaintiff. Doc. 142 at 2-3. Plaintiff asserts that because he is proceeding pro se, and because

he asserts claims against multiple Defendants, he may not be able to articulate facts in

Case 2:09-cv-02567-DGC Document 150 Filed 07/26/10 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 -

support of summary judgment within the confines of seventeen pages. Id. at 4. The Court

considered Plaintiff’s pro se status and the nature of the case, including the number of

Defendants, in denying the motion to exceed page limit. See Doc. 137 at 2.

Plaintiff notes that Rule 56(c) provides that “a party may move for summary judgment

at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery.” Doc. 142 at 3 (citing Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(c)(1)(A). That rule further provides that times specified in the rule “apply unless a

different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).

The Court required Plaintiff to file his summary judgment motion after the close of discovery

(Doc. 141 at 2) in order to allow for the full presentation of facts and to avoid the need for

a continuance under Rule 56(f). Plaintiff has provided no basis for the Court to reconsider

that requirement. The Court notes that it will promptly rule on Plaintiff’s summary judgment

motion (and any motions filed by Defendants) once briefing is complete.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration for leave to exceed page

limit (Doc. 142) is denied.

DATED this 26th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02567-DGC Document 150 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 2