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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

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 on a number of Motions filed by Plaintiff on 

November 13, 2018. Plaintiff filed the following: (1) Motion for Leave to File NonElectronic Document, a thumb drive of audio recordings by Jeremy Thacker (Doc. 124); 

(2) Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages for Response to Defendants’ Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 125); (3) Motion for Summary Judgment in the 

“Alternative” (Doc. 126); and (4) Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment (Doc. 127). 

 Both parties filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on September 28, 2018. 

(Docs. 112 and 113). This was the dispositive motion deadline set in the Scheduling 

Order. (Doc. 23 at 5). Dispositive motions filed after September 28, 2018 are thus in 

violation of the Court’s Scheduling Order. Moreover, parties are not allowed to file more 

than one summary judgment motion without leave of the Court. (See Doc. 23 at 6, “No 

party shall file more than one motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure unless permission is first obtained from the Court.”). Therefore, 
- 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 

Plaintiff’s Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied as procedurally 

deficient and in violation of Court Orders and the Local Rules of this District. 

 Plaintiff also filed a Motion to file additional pages. Counsel for Plaintiff states 

that, “despite efforts,” he “could not pare it [the Response] down any further.” (Doc. 125 

at 1). Mr. Silence filed this Motion on November 13, 2018, the day Mr. Silence states 

that Plaintiff’s Response was due1

. Plaintiff had previously obtained a two-week 

extension of his deadline to file the Response, which the Court approved. (Doc. 122, 

Order “allowing Plaintiff up to and including November 12, 2018 to file a Response.”). 

Notwithstanding, Plaintiff filed the present Motion to extend page limits on November 

13, 2018. The Court does not find good cause to allow an extension of page limits and 

therefore Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied. As a result, the Response that Plaintiff filed 

on November 13, 2018 (Doc. 127) will be stricken. Plaintiff shall have until November 

15, 2018, to file a Response that complies with the Local Rules and this Order.2

 Lastly, Plaintiff filed a Motion for leave to file thumb drives purportedly 

containing audio recordings of Plaintiff. (Doc. 124). It appears that Plaintiff intends for 

the Court to listen to these recordings in tandem with his Response to Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff states that “there are disputes about the 

accuracy of the transcripts that Defendants’ court reporter prepared,” and therefore the 

Plaintiff believes the Court should listen to these audio recordings and sort out the 

discrepancies. The Court will not spend its time doing this. If Plaintiff disagreed with 

the transcript prepared by Defendant, there are other ways Plaintiff could have dealt with 

this issue. The Court will deny this Motion. 

 Accordingly 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Non-

 1

 While November 12, 2018, was a Court Holiday, the parties’ stipulation, filed by Mr. Silence, stated to the Court that Plaintiff’s Response would be due on November 12, 

2018. (Doc. 121). Therefore, this is the deadline that the Court Ordered Plaintiff to 

Respond. 

2

 The Court notes that it has, on more than one occasion, stricken documents filed by Plaintiff as being non-compliant with Local Rules and prior Orders of the Court. (Docs. 

87 and 94, “Plaintiff wholly ignored this Court’s previous Order and LRCiv 7.1.”). 
- 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 

Electronic Document (Doc. 124) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Excess 

Pages (Doc. 125) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

(Doc. 126) is DENIED. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Response to Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment (Doc. 127) is STRICKEN for the reasons stated herein. Plaintiff 

shall have until November 15, 2018 to file a Response that complies with this Order and 

all applicable Rules. 

 Dated this 14th day of November, 2018. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa 

United States District Judge