Professional Documents
Culture Documents
parties on notice that they must first obtain permission from the Court to
exceed the ten-page limitationor face the consequences. Because the
parties elected not to put this page-limitation provision in their Stipulated
Case Management Order, which I approved in July 2015, Sinclair takes the
position that it is no longer bound by page limitations.
Au contraire.
I was not asked to relieve the parties of the page-limitation provision
when I was asked to approve their Stipulated Case Management Order. Nor
would I have done so if I were asked. Slipping something that the judge has
not actually ordered into a proposed order is never a wise tactic. And not
slipping something into a proposed orderso that a party can then argue
that the court has acted by omissionis even less wise.
So, to be clear, the ten-page limitation is alive and well in this case. Its
purpose is to preserve the parties resources, by protecting them from being
forced to respond to unnecessarily-long motions and briefs, and to preserve
judicial resources so that I have the time to rule on the parties motions,
plus time to rule on the pending motions in the over 300 other active cases I
am currently responsible for.
Thus, [e]nforcing page limits and other restrictions on litigants is
rather ordinary practice, which is rather strictly, and cheerfully,
enforced. Watts v. Thompson, 116 F.3d 220, 224 (7th Cir. 1997). Page
limitations are
designed as much for the benefit of the litigants as for the
benefit of the court. If extra pages mean stronger argument,
Order on Sinclai rs Moti on to Set Emergency Hearing Regarding Briefing
Sinclair Transportation Company v. Larson, 2012 CV 907
Page 2 of 5
margins are used). But some of Sinclairs papers are overly long, even if I
consider the double-spacing. And my hope is that Sinclair will use this
opportunity to winnow down the facts and legal arguments that I truly need
to be informed about so that I can efficiently rule on the issues it seeks to
raise.
I therefore give Sinclair permission to refile the motions and brief I have
struck. Recognizing that trial is fast-approaching, Sinclair must refile any
motion or brief by no later than February 2. The defendants need not
respond to any motion or brief that has been struck.
But I also recognize that the defendants have already had an
opportunity to consider the issues raised by Sinclair. I therefore exercise my
discretion under C.R.C.P. 121, 1-15(1), to shorten the defendants response
time. Any response to the refiled motion or brief must therefore be filed no
later than February 8. Any reply by Sinclair must be filed by no later than
February 11. I will then do my best to rule on all pending issues before the
trial begins.
Given my resolution of Sinclairs motion, I deny the request for an
emergency hearing.
So Ordered:
January 28, 2016
BY THE COURT:
______________________
Todd Taylor
District Court Judge