1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK et al.,

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 4:22-cv-00691-O

 v.

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General of the United 

States et al., 

 Defendants.

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS

1. The main purpose of briefing—especially merits briefing—is to provide the Court 

with briefing that will be useful in adjudicating the issues presented in the case. If arbitrary page limits 

interfere with this main purpose, then a party should seek leave to exceed those limits. 

2. That is precisely what Defendants have done here. Intervenor Plaintiffs BlackHawk 

Manufacturing Group has no objection to Defendants’ motion. Nor does Intervenor Plaintiff 

Defense Distributed or Intervenor Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation. Although Original 

Plaintiffs oppose, they do not justify their opposition or identify any prejudice they would incur from 

a page limits increase.

3. Defendants’ closing merits brief is responding to four briefs filed by Plaintiffs totaling

90 pages. Mot. to Exceed Page Limits at 1, ECF No. 198 (Mot.). It is reasonable to respond to 90 

pages of briefing with a 55-page brief. The reasonableness of this request is demonstrated by the fact 

that none of the Intervenor Plaintiffs object to it. If Intervenor Plaintiffs knew of any prejudice they 

would suffer from Defendants’ filing of a 55-page brief, then they would have objected. None did.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 202 Filed 04/14/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 4344
2

4. Original Plaintiffs do not cite any authority suggesting that Defendants’ request is 

unreasonable or present any coherent justification for their opposition.

5. Original Plaintiffs do not contend that the number of pages in the parties’ summary 

judgment briefing has unduly favored Defendants. Nor could they: Plaintiffs have had the

opportunity to present 182 pages of merits briefing in this case. Id. By contrast, with the requested 

extension, Defendants’ total merits briefing amounts to only 127 pages. 

6. Instead, Original Plaintiffs mainly contend that a 50-page brief represents 59% of the 

length of all plaintiffs’ closing merits briefs and that a 55-page brief represents 65%. Opp. to Mot. at 

3, ECF No. 201 (Opp.). Initially, this calculation is incorrect because Original Plaintiffs neglect to 

mention that Defendants are responding to four, not three, briefs, for a total of 90 pages. But in any 

event, Original Plaintiffs fail to explain the significance of these arbitrary percentages. They offer

nothing to suggest that they would be prejudiced by this discrete page length increase. 

7. As Defendants’ motion explained, the reason a page extension is necessary is not 

simply that this case involves “multiple parties,” see id. at 4. Rather, the parties’ merits briefing involves 

discussion of jurisdictional issues, merits issues, and remedial issues. Original Plaintiffs’ complaint 

alone includes seven causes of action. Am. Compl., ECF No. 93. And contending that some of 

plaintiffs’ briefs overlap “to a point” with others, Opp. at 4, is very different from representing that 

the four briefs to which Defendants are responding overlap to a significant degree. A 55-page closing 

brief is reasonable to address issues relating not just to the merits but also to matters of jurisdiction 

and the scope of any remedy. Notably, Original Plaintiffs fail to identify any portion of Defendants’ 

proposed closing merits brief that they believe to be unduly disproportionate to the particular 

argument being addressed. 

9. Original Plaintiffs contend that Defendants erred by not determining at the outset of 

merits briefing the number of pages that would be appropriate for each party’s briefs. Id. at 4. But 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 202 Filed 04/14/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 4345
3

given the number of parties involved in this case, an appropriate page limit would have been very 

difficult to determine in the abstract. Instead, Defendants reasonably decided to assess the need to 

seek additional page limits once they saw how many pages of briefing they would be responding to. 

Defendants never represented to Plaintiffs that they would not be seeking a page limits extension, to 

the extent necessary, for Defendants’ closing merits brief. And in any event, Original Plaintiffs fail to 

explain what possible difference it could have made if Defendants had moved to extend the page 

limits earlier as opposed to now. And notably, they do not state that their position on Defendants' 

motion would have been any different. 

10. As explained above, the overall length of the parties’ summary judgment briefs is 

heavily disproportionate in favor of Plaintiffs. And Original Plaintiffs incorrectly contend that 

Defendants exceeded the Court’s page limits with their opening merits brief. Id. at 2, 4. The Local 

Rules allow for summary judgment “principal briefs”—in support of or in opposition to summary 

judgment—of up to 50 pages. LR 56.5(b). The Rules thus would allow for Defendants to file a brief 

supporting their cross-motion for summary judgment of up to 50 pages, and a brief supporting their 

opposition to Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motions of up to 50 pages. Not wishing to burden the 

Court or adverse parties, Defendants instead filed a combined brief well under this combined page 

limit. And given that Plaintiffs’ three opening briefs totaled 97 pages, Mot. at 1, it was certainly 

reasonable for Defendants to file a 72-page brief in response. Original Plaintiffs did not object to 

Defendants’ opening merits brief when it was filed, and their belated opposition rings hollow.

11. Thus, Original Plaintiffs present no coherent reason for opposing Defendants’ page 

limits request. Nor do they identify any possible prejudice they could conceivably incur from this 

request.

12. Plaintiffs have had more than an adequate opportunity to present their merits 

arguments to the Court in the manner they wished. Defendants simply request the same opportunity. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 202 Filed 04/14/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 4346
4

Plaintiff BlackHawk Manufacturing and Plaintiff Defense Distributed and Plaintiff Second 

Amendment Foundation all agree that Defendants request a reasonable number of pages to provide 

such briefing. Only Original Plaintiffs stand opposed. 

For the reasons stated above and in Defendants’ opening brief, Defendants respectfully 

request that the Court grant their partially opposed motion to exceed page limits.

DATED: April 14, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN M. BOYNTON

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

ALEXANDER K. HAAS

Director, Federal Programs Branch

LESLEY FARBY

Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch

/s/ Daniel Riess

DANIEL RIESS

TAISA M. GOODNATURE

JEREMY S.B. NEWMAN

Trial Attorneys

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

U.S. Department of Justice

1100 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 353-3098

Email: Daniel.Riess@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On April 14, 2023, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of court 

for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the 

court. I hereby certify that I have served all parties electronically or by another manner authorized by 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2).

/s/ Daniel Riess

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 202 Filed 04/14/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 4347