1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK; MICHAEL G. 

ANDREN; TACTICAL MACHINING, LLC, a 

limited liability company; FIREARMS POLICY 

COALITION, INC., a nonprofit corporation,

Plaintiffs,

and

BLACKHAWK MANUFACTURING GROUP, 

INC.; DEFENSE DISTRIBUTED; and SECOND 

AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.,

Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

v.

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official

capacity as Attorney General of the United States; 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; 

STEVEN DETTELBACH, in his official capacity as 

Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives; and BUREAU OF 

ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND 

EXPLOSIVES

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00691-O

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXCESS PAGES

Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Response in opposition to Defendants’ request to file a 

summary judgment reply brief in excess of 50 pages. Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants receiving 

an extension of pages, even double the amount of pages normally allowed by the Rules, but 

Defendants’ request for a 55 page reply is excessive. In support, Plaintiffs state the following:

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 201 Filed 04/10/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 4338
2

1. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Judgment and their Brief in Support on 

December 23, 2022. ECF Nos. 140, 141. Consistent with the Rules, Plaintiffs’ Brief was 

50 pages long. Intervenor-Plaintiffs Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc. also filed their 

Motion for Summary Judgment and their Brief in Support on December 23, 2022. ECF 

Nos. 144, 145. On January 12, 2023, Intervenor-Plaintiffs Defense Distributed and the 

Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., filed their Motion for Summary Judgment and their 

Brief in Support. ECF Nos. 165, 166.

2. Defendants filed their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 180, and 

their Combined Brief in support of their Motion and in opposition to Plaintiffs’ and 

Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Motions, ECF No. 181, on February 13, 2023. Apparently 

determining that the Local Rule did not apply as written because they were submitting a 

single response to multiple Plaintiffs or because they were filing a cross-motion,

Defendants’ Brief was 72 pages, as compared to the default limit of 50 pages under Local 

Rule 56.5(b). Presumably this Cross-Motion and opposition was fully responsive to 

Plaintiffs’ opening briefs as Defendants did not submit or seek leave to submit additional 

pages. Defendants’ reliance on the respective page countsfor the opening briefs is therefore

inapposite and it is not proper to give Defendants additional pages in their reply brief to 

cover what would have been properly in their opposition.

3. Plaintiffs filed their combined reply and response brief in support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion and in opposition to the Agencies’ Motion on March 6, 2023. ECF No. 191. Despite 

the excess length of Defendants’ brief, Plaintiffs’ opposition brief was within the limits of 

the Local Rules at just under 50 pages. Intervenor-Plaintiffs filed their Response/Reply 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 201 Filed 04/10/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 4339
3

briefs the same day. ECF Nos. 192, 193. Combined, Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ 

closing briefs totaled 85 pages.

4. On March 24, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Provide Supplemental 

Authority to their Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendants’ CrossMotion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 197. That Motion, which informed this Court of 

an Advisory Letter Defendants promulgated after Plaintiffs completed their summary 

judgment briefs, was five pages in length.

5. On March 29, 2023, Defendants informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that they wish to seek 

leave of the Court for excess pages for their reply.

6. Under the Local Rules for this District, “the length of a principal [summary 

judgment] brief must not exceed 50 pages and a reply brief must not exceed 25 pages,” or 

one half the length of the principal brief. LR 56.5(b).

7. Plaintiffs informed Defendants that they would not object to a reasonable extension 

to 50 pages, or twice the pages allowed by default.

8. Even considering all of Plaintiffs’ briefs combined, a 50-page reply brief would be 

59 percent of the length of Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ briefs, providing eight 

additional pages above the 50 percent limit deemed adequate by the Rules.

9. Defendants, however, request an extension to 55 pages, or 65 percent of the length 

of Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ combined briefs, amounting to an additional 13 

pages beyond the Rule’s default that a summary judgment reply may be one-half the length 

of the response.

10. Even including the additional five pages in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Provide 

Supplemental Authority, a 50-page reply brief would be 56 percent of the length of 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 201 Filed 04/10/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 4340
4

Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ combined briefs, providing five additional pages 

above the 50 percent limit. An extension to 55 pages would be 61 percent of the length of 

all Plaintiffs’ combined briefs, or ten pages above the 50 percent limit.

11. Defendants’ only explanation for needing additional pages is that they are 

responding to multiple parties, but Plaintiffs’ arguments overlap to a point and have other 

minor redundancies that already make applying the default rule favorable to Defendants. 

Counting opposition pages rather than parties or even articulating substantive arguments, 

Defendants provide no reason why they need thirteen more pages than the Rules deem 

generally adequate for a proportional reply brief.

12. Moreover, Defendants knew from the outset that the summary judgment briefing 

in this case involved multiple parties and issues yet did not seek clarification on appropriate 

page limits at a time fair and clear to all parties. Additionally, Defendants were fully aware 

of all the arguments they make when they filed their unopposed Motion for Extension of 

Time on March 20, 2023, yet failed to seek additional pages at that time. Instead, 

Defendants waited and only requested additional pages for their reply brief simultaneously 

with filing that brief, essentially making their request a fait accompli. This Court should 

not encourage such self-help maneuvers.1

13. Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Defendants’ Motion 

for Excess Pages to the extent it seeks more than 50 pages for Defendants’ reply brief.

1 Additionally, Defendants state in their Motion for Leave that they “have not sought any extension 

of the page limits previously in conjunction with their summary judgment brief,” ECF No. 198, at 

2, yet they gloss over the fact that their opening summary judgment brief was 72 pages (22 pages 

in excess of the default limit) despite not seeking leave of this Court for the additional pages.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 201 Filed 04/10/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 4341
5 

DATED this 10th day of April, 2023. 

Respectfully submitted,

R. Brent Cooper (TX Bar No. 04783250) 

Benjamin D. Passey (TX Bar No. 24125681) 

COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. 

900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Telephone: (214) 712-9500 

Telecopy: (214) 712-9540 

brent.cooper@cooperscully.com 

ben.passey@cooperscully.com 

Cody J. Wisniewski* (CO Bar No. 50415) 

FIREARMS POLICY COALITION

5550 Painted Mirage Road, Suite 320 

Las Vegas, NV 89149 

Telephone: (916) 378-5785 

Telecopy: (916) 476-2392 

cwi@fpchq.org 

/s/ Erin M. Erhardt 

Erin M. Erhardt* (CO Bar No. 49360) 

Kaitlyn D. Schiraldi* (TN Bar No. 039737) 

MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION

2596 S. Lewis Way

Lakewood, CO 80227 

Telephone: (303) 292-2021 

Telecopy: (877) 349-7074 

eerhardt@mslegal.org 

kschiraldi@mslegal.org 

*Admitted pro hac vice 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 201 Filed 04/10/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 4342
6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 10th day of April, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 

using this Court’s CM/ECF system. 

I certify that all participants in this case are registered CM/ECF users and service will be 

accomplished by this Court’s CM/ECF system. 

/s/ Erin M. Erhardt 

Erin M. Erhardt

MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION 

 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 201 Filed 04/10/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 4343