ORDER AND OPINION [Re: Motion at docket 182]

JOHN W. SEDWICK, District Judge.

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 182 defendant, counter-claimant, and third-party plaintiff Richard Jefferson ("Jefferson") moves to strike the filing of plaintiff and counter-defendant Western Alliance Bank ("Alliance") at docket 177. Alliance opposes at docket 189. Jefferson replies at docket 200. Oral argument was not requested and would not assist the court.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Local Rule of Civil Procedure ("Local Rule") 7.2(m) governs motions to strike. It provides in pertinent part that a motion to strike may be filed "if it seeks to strike any part of a filing or submission on the ground that it is prohibited (or not authorized) by a statute, rule, or court order."1 The decision to grant or deny a motion to strike is within the court's discretion.2

III. DISCUSSION

Alliance filed a motion for summary judgment3 supported by a fourteen-page, sixty-paragraph separate statement of facts ("SOF").4 Jefferson filed an opposition to the motion5 supported by a 140-page document that contains his controverting statement of facts ("CSOF") and additional statement of facts ("ASOF").6 Alliance then filed a reply7 and a separate response to Jefferson's CSOF and ASOF.8 Alliance's separate response is the subject of Jefferson's present motion to strike. In it, Alliance (1) objects to facts set out in Jefferson's ASOF as being "repetitive;" (2) responds to facts set out in Jefferson's ASOF that it concedes are not repetitive; and (3) responds to Jefferson's evidentiary objections to its own SOF.9

Jefferson argues that Alliance's response is unauthorized by the Local Rules. He is correct. If the moving party wishes to respond to a non-moving party's statement of facts or evidentiary objections, it may do so in its reply memorandum—not in a separate responsive memorandum.10 Because Alliance's separate memorandum responds to Jefferson's ASOF and the evidentiary objections in Jefferson's CSOF, it is unauthorized and Jefferson's motion to strike will be granted.

The court notes that Jefferson's filing at docket 166 also violates the Local Rules. Local Rule 7.2 permits a non-moving party to include in its controverting statement of facts objections to the moving party's statement of facts, but such objections "must be stated summarily without argument."11 Argument belongs in the non-moving party's opposition brief, within the page limit.12 Jefferson's 103-page CSOF flaunts this rule; it is filled with objections accompanied by explanation and argument. Many of Jefferson's objections span multiple pages.13 Jefferson's arguments in support of his evidentiary objections are improper and will not be considered by the court.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the preceding discussion, Jefferson's motion to strike at docket 182 is GRANTED; Alliance's filing at docket 177 is hereby stricken. Further, the court will consider or disregard Jefferson's filing at docket 166 consistent with the authority discussed above.