Opinion ID: 720609
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Overlength Brief

Text: 30 ISC argues that Rules 7(b)(2) and 10(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that its incorporations be allowed. Rule 7(b)(2), however, merely provides that [t]he rules applicable to captions and other matters of form of pleadings apply to all motions and other papers provided for by these rules, while Rule 10(c) simply states that [s]tatements in a pleading may be adopted by reference in a different part of the same pleading or in another pleading or in any motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(2), 10(c). Nevertheless, ISC attempts to construct a relationship between Rules 7(b)(2) and 10(c) which, ostensibly, would provide some support for its argument. ISC conjoins Rule 10(c)'s provision regarding the adoption by reference of material from pleadings with Rule 7(b)(2)'s statement that the rules applicable to pleadings shall apply to all motions and other papers. Born of this rather unique union is ISC's peculiar argument: since 10(c) allows the adoption by reference of material from pleadings, and 7(b)(2) holds that the rules applicable to pleadings shall apply to all other papers (such as briefs), the two rules when read together should, according to ISC, allow the incorporation of substantive material from briefs. 31 Rule 7(b)(2), however, holds only that the rules that apply to the form of pleadings shall apply to other papers. Thus, the reach of the 10(c) provision permitting the adoption by reference of material from pleadings cannot be extended by 7(b)(2) to include the adoption of substantive material in other papers. Accordingly, the incorporation of substantive material by reference is not sanctioned by the federal rules at issue, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the incorporations.