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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeremy Thacker, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GPS Insight LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00063-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court upon the filing of the Memorandum by Plaintiff 

related to “unresolved discovery issues” between the Parties. (Doc. 90). The Court will 

strike Plaintiff’s Memorandum (Doc. 90) as not being filed “in accordance with the 

Court's July 26, 2018 ruling” which limited Plaintiff to “7 pages to describe the briefing 

[discovery issues] and no more than 12 pages to support that briefing,” and for being in 

violation of LRCiv 7.1. (Doc. 80). 

 As an initial matter, Plaintiff does not move for relief which can be granted, but 

rather spends most of his brief restating his claims in the Complaint, and the language 

contained in the Court’s MIDP and Scheduling Orders. These statements have already 

been presented to the Court multiple times. 

 Moreover, Plaintiff has filed a spreadsheet attachment in extraordinarily small font 

that expands his discovery dispute well-beyond that which was presented to the Court 

initially (Doc. 55) and he apparently expects this Court to go through this spreadsheet 

line-by-line. Plaintiff states with regard to this PDF spreadsheet that “simply copying 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 94 Filed 08/22/18 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

and pasting the unresolved requests into this Briefing would have taken up all 7 pages . . . 

so there was no other viable means of providing the information to the Court within the 

page limit.” (Doc. 90 at 5). Plaintiff wholly ignored this Court’s previous Order and 

LRCiv 7.1(b), which provides that “[a]ll pleadings, motions and other original 

documents” filed with the Court shall be typed in a “font size no smaller than 13 point.” 

Additionally, the “margin shall not be less than 1 1⁄2 inches and the right margin shall not 

be less than 1⁄2 inch.” Moreover, the Rule provides that the text “shall be typed doublespaced and shall not exceed 28 lines per page.” Here, it is clear that the font size is much 

smaller than 13 point. Moreover, the margins on the page have been shrunken in order to 

accommodate all of the text on the pages. The Court also notes that some of the lines are 

cut off by the boxes because there are too many words on the page. Lastly, for example, 

the first page of exhibits contains 48 lines of small text, rather than the 28 lines as limited 

by the Rule. These exhibits are not copies of pre-existing documents in the nature of 

business records or bank statements, but rather “original documents” that were created by 

the Plaintiff for the purpose of filing with the Court. These documents are not in 

compliance with the Rule. 

 At the July 26, 2018 discovery dispute hearing, Plaintiff requested to have 

additional pages to describe these issues and this Court gave him seven pages with twelve 

pages of attachments, a limit that is more than reasonable under the circumstances. The 

Court gave Plaintiff until August 16, 2018 to file his brief. (Doc. 69). Instead of filing 

his brief in accordance with what was Ordered at the hearing by August 16, 2018, 

Plaintiff filed an ex parte Motion, requesting expedited relief, asking the Court to allow 

him to submit a 25-page motion with 25-pages of attachments related to “32 unresolved 

discovery issues.” (Doc. 75). Noting that his request went “well beyond the page limits 

provided for in LRCiv 7.2,” the Court denied his Motion and Ordered Plaintiff to follow 

the Court’s previous ruling of July 26, 2018, the transcript of which is on the docket. 

(Doc. 80). Moreover, it was ordered that “[t]he Court will not consider any further 

discovery disputes, give further guidance to the parties, or entertain any hearing requests 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 94 Filed 08/22/18 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

until the parties jointly certify that they have personally met and conferred on these 

issues.” (Doc. 87). In striking the Plaintiff’s Memorandum, the Court will allow Plaintiff 

one more opportunity to submit his arguments to the Court, related to the issues described 

in the Joint Notice of Discovery Dispute (Doc. 55), and in accordance with the Court’s 

prior rulings on this matter. (Docs. 69, 80, and 87). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Memorandum (Doc. 90) is 

STRICKEN for the reasons stated herein. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until August 27, 2018 to 

file his brief in accordance with this and all previous Orders of the Court. Defendants 

shall be permitted to respond within seven (7) days thereafter. 

Dated this 21st day of August, 2018. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 94 Filed 08/22/18 Page 3 of 3