IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AMY RACHEL, etc., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 13-0522-WS-M

 )

CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

 ORDER

The plaintiff has filed a motion to file an omnibus response to the four 

remaining defendants’ motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 145). The plaintiff 

has also filed its response, which totals 94 pages (including nine pages of tables of 

contents, signature page and certificate of service). The plaintiff’s motion at least 

implicitly seeks leave to file a brief longer than the 30 pages permitted by local 

rule.

The plaintiff appears to assume that her 85-page brief is unobjectionable 

because it is shorter than the 120 pages she could have utilized had she filed four 

separate briefs. (Doc. 145, ¶ 6). But it is difficult to see how 85 pages could fail 

to be excessive, given the plaintiff’s representation that “the facts are largely in 

common for all four briefs” filed by the defendants and that “much of the law 

involved in all four briefs is identical.” (Id., ¶¶ 2, 3). 

Excess, however, is common in this lawsuit. The City file a proper 25-page 

brief, (Doc. 118), but it gamed the system by spinning off its entire statement of 

facts to a separate, 30-page document. (Id. at 4; Doc. 125). The other defendants 

engaged in the same practice. (Docs. 124 at 2; Doc. 125; Doc. 129 at 3; Doc. 131; 

Doc. 134 at 2; Doc. 136). As this Court has repeatedly observed, such a practice is 

improper.1 

 1 The local rules require the filing of proposed determinations of uncontroverted 

fact. Local Rule 7.2(a). However, that rule “was not intended to allow parties to evade 

Case 1:13-cv-00522-WS-M Document 149 Filed 03/10/15 Page 1 of 2
2

The Court did not notice the defendants’ tactic initially, and it is too late in 

the day to address it now. However, having unknowingly allowed the defendants 

to file overly long briefs without motion, authorization or showing of true need, 

the Court cannot deny the plaintiff the same privilege. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s 

motion to file an omnibus response, and her embedded motion to exceed the page 

limitations of Local Rule 7.1(b), is granted.

2

 

 

DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of March, 2015.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

page limitations imposed by LR 7.1(b) ... ; rather, the purpose of the Suggested 

Determinations of Fact and Conclusions of Law requirement is to have a party restate the 

facts and law from its brief in a form that the Court could adopt as its ruling in that 

party’s favor.” Phillips v. Irvin, 2006 WL 1663677 at *1 n.3 (S.D. Ala. 2006), rev’d in 

part on other grounds, 222 Fed. Appx. 928 (11th Cir. 2007); see also State Farm Fire & 

Casualty Co. v. Richardson, 2008 WL 4531765 at *1 n.1 (S.D. Ala. 2008) (“The 30-page 

briefing limitation set forth in Local Rule 7.1(b) would be meaningless if a party could 

disaggregate the fact and law portions of its brief into two different filings. ... [T]he 

brief should be a self-contained filing including all factual recitation and legal discussion 

necessary to support the movant’s position.”). Moreover, allowing filings under Rule 

7.2(a) to include material not included in the movant’s brief “is inefficient and unwieldy 

because it obligates the Court to read two interwoven documents in tandem in order to 

glean the gist of [the movant’s] arguments.” English v. CSA Equipment Co., Civil Action 

No. 05-0312-WS-B (Doc. 49 at 3); accord Gross-Jones v. Mercy Medical, Civil Action 

No. 11-0132-WS-M (Doc. 59) (striking defendant’s brief and proposed determinations on 

this basis); see also Collar v. Austin, ___ F.Supp. 3d ___, 2015 WL 505667 at *7 n.22 

(S.D. Ala. 2015) (“Parenthetically, the defendant’s purported ‘adopt[ion] and 

incorporat[ion]’ of his argument concerning Haralson from his reply brief on [a previous 

motion] is an improper and ineffective effort to avoid the page limitations of Local Rule 

7.1(b).”); Morgan v. Bill Vann Co., 2011 WL 6056083 at *1 n.1 (S.D. Ala. 2011) (“Those 

page limitations exist for good reason, to protect litigants and judicial resources alike, and 

are neither aspirational nor advisory in a litigant’s discretion.”). In short, “[l]ike its sister 

courts, the Court will not countenance any attempt to avoid the page limit requirement of 

the Local Rules.” FNB Bank v. Park National Corp., 2013 WL 68427788 at *1 n.1 (S.D. 

Ala. 2013) (internal quotes omitted). 

2 The 15-page limitation for reply briefs found in Local Rule 7.1(b) will be strictly 

enforced.

Case 1:13-cv-00522-WS-M Document 149 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 2