Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01407/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01407-1/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

Anthony Farier, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Mesa, a municipal corporation, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1407-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant has filed a motion for extension of page limitation for its motion for

summary judgment. Dkt. #92. The Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.

Rule 7.2 of the Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “a motion

including its supporting memorandum . . . shall not exceed seventeen (17) pages[.]” LRCiv

7.2(e). Defendant’s proposed motion for summary judgment exceeds the 17-page limit by

more than 20 pages. Dkt. #95. The motion includes 10 pages on the background section for

the failure-to-promote claim and another 10 pages for the retaliation claim. Id. The law and

argument section does not even begin until page 23 – 6 pages beyond the limit of 17. Id.

The Court finds that the proposed motion is unnecessarily excessive.

The Court further finds that Defendant’s proposed statement of facts is too long. That

document is 43 pages and includes a whopping 413 separate paragraphs (spanning Dkt.

##96-99). Under Local Rule 56.1(a), only material facts shall be included in a statement of

facts. Facts that are irrelevant or unnecessary to the disposition of the motion for summary

Case 2:07-cv-01407-DGC Document 102 Filed 01/28/09 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 -

judgment are not material. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48

(1986).

Defendant shall, by February 6, 2009, file a revised motion for summary judgment not

to exceed 20 pages and a revised statement of facts not to exceed 15 pages and 40 discrete

material facts.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion for extension of page limitation for its motion for

summary judgment (Dkt. #92) is granted in part and denied in part.

2. Defendant shall, by February 6, 2009, file a revised motion for summary

judgment not to exceed 20 pages and a revised statement of facts not to exceed

15 pages and 40 discrete material facts. 

DATED this 28th day of January, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-01407-DGC Document 102 Filed 01/28/09 Page 2 of 2