Holtz v. Brnovich, CV-17-02562-PHX-JAT. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20191216779
Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 13, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , Senior District Judge . On December 10, 2019, Respondents moved for a 45-day extension of time to file their response to Petitioner's objections. (Doc. 61). Respondents argued they needed additional time because Petitioner received a similar extension and because Petitioner's objections were 40 pages. ( Id. ). The Court granted Respondents' request for additional time, citing the length of Petitioner's objections as the justification for Respondents needing more ti
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , Senior District Judge . On December 10, 2019, Respondents moved for a 45-day extension of time to file their response to Petitioner's objections. (Doc. 61). Respondents argued they needed additional time because Petitioner received a similar extension and because Petitioner's objections were 40 pages. ( Id. ). The Court granted Respondents' request for additional time, citing the length of Petitioner's objections as the justification for Respondents needing more tim..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
On December 10, 2019, Respondents moved for a 45-day extension of time to file their response to Petitioner's objections. (Doc. 61). Respondents argued they needed additional time because Petitioner received a similar extension and because Petitioner's objections were 40 pages. (Id.). The Court granted Respondents' request for additional time, citing the length of Petitioner's objections as the justification for Respondents needing more time. (Doc. 62). Thereafter, Respondents moved to strike the objections for being over the page limit. (Doc. 63).
The Court finds that by seeking and receiving an extension of time to respond to Petitioner's over-length objections without any mention of striking them, Respondents waived any objection to the length of the objections. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to strike (Doc. 63) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for additional time found within the motion to strike is also denied.
Source: Leagle
