Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

UNITED STATES EX REL. SANDAGER v. DELL MARKETING L.P., 08-CV-4805 (PAM/TNL). (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Minnesota Number: infdco20120112936 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 10, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER PAUL A. MAGNUSON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court upon the request of Defendants Dell Marketing, L.P., Insight Public Sector, Inc., P.C. Mall Gov, Inc., P.C. Specialists, Inc., and World Wide Technology, Inc. ("Requesting Defendants") for an increase in the Local Rule 7.1(d) word count limitation relating to their forthcoming motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Docket Nos. 110, 112.) Plaintiff Bryan Sandager does not object to the request provided that the Court gr
More

ORDER

PAUL A. MAGNUSON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon the request of Defendants Dell Marketing, L.P., Insight Public Sector, Inc., P.C. Mall Gov, Inc., P.C. Specialists, Inc., and World Wide Technology, Inc. ("Requesting Defendants") for an increase in the Local Rule 7.1(d) word count limitation relating to their forthcoming motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Docket Nos. 110, 112.) Plaintiff Bryan Sandager does not object to the request provided that the Court grant him a corresponding increase in word count should he make such a request in the future. (Docket No. 111.) Plaintiff may certainly request an increase in word count if he deems such a request necessary, but the Court will not commit to granting such a request in the abstract. The Court will decide any future requests on the basis of their merits. Turning to the request before it, the Court will grant the Requesting Defendants an increase in word count as specified below.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants Dell Marketing, L.P., Insight Public Sector, Inc., P.C. Mall Gov, Inc., P.C. Specialists, Inc., and World Wide Technology, Inc. shall have a collective total of 22,000 words in which to jointly present their motions to dismiss; 2. The 22,000 word limit shall include opening memoranda and reply memoranda; and 3. Defendant World Wide Technology, Inc. shall have an additional 1,400 words in which to address its individualized defense that it did not sell the product at issue in this case.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer