STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER EXTENDING PAGE LIMITS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFS AND ORDER THEREON

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.

The Defendants and Plaintiff (the parties) in the above-captioned case stipulate and agree as follows:

1. Defendants in this action plan to file a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication by October 7, 2019. This case involves two causes of action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California Civil Code § 52.1 asserted against three individual defendants, Scott Lunardi, Kyle Foster, and Robert Jones. The central question in this case is whether Defendants violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution by inspecting Plaintiff Timothy Larios's cell phone without obtaining a warrant.

2. This Court's standing order has a page limit for points and authorities of twenty pages on all initial moving papers, twenty pages on oppositions, and ten pages for replies. The same order requires that request for page limit increases must be made in writing with a proposed order setting forth any and all reasons for an increase in page limit at least seven days prior to the filing of the motion.

3. Defendants Scott Lunardi, Kyle Foster, and Robert Jones are preparing to move for summary judgment. Although there are three individual defendants in the instant action, there is overlap in the claims asserted against them. It would be inefficient and a waste of judicial resources for Defendants to file three separate motions for summary judgment because the motions would be needlessly repetitive. Accordingly, Defendants plan to consolidate their respective arguments and evidence supporting summary judgment under one motion for summary judgment. However, Defendants cannot adequately present their arguments and evidence, which will need to detail a six month internal affairs investigation, within the twenty page limitation imposed by this Court. Defendants anticipate that consolidating their arguments and evidence supporting summary judgment under one motion—while maximizing efficiency and preservation of judicial and state resources—will, however, necessitate an increase in the page limitation imposed by this Court.

4. In light of the nature of the issues that must be addressed in this motion, the number of parties, and the volume of material facts that must be adduced in the motion, the parties agree there is good cause to extend the page limits for the parties' briefs. The parties agree Defendants may file a combined Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment not to exceed thirty-five pages, and a reply brief not to exceed twenty pages. The parties agree Plaintiff may file an opposition brief not to exceed thirty-five pages.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties, subject to the Court's approval, that:

Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment shall not exceed thirty-five pages, and a reply brief shall not exceed twenty pages, and Plaintiff's opposition brief shall not exceed thirty-five pages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.