PARTIES' PAGE LIMIT PROTOCOL FOR DEFENDANTS' ANTICIPATED MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND RELATED BRIEFING

NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, District Judge.

In response to the Court's November 18, 2019 Order, ECF No. 145 (the "Order"), Lead Plaintiff Utah Retirement Systems ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Deloitte & Touche LLP, Deloitte Certified Public Accountants, S.A., Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, Peter C. Georgiopoulos, George Konomos, Dimitris Melissanidis, PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, PricewaterhouseCoopers S.A., E. Nikolas Tavlarios, and John P. Tavlarios (collectively, the "Moving Defendants," and together with Plaintiff, the "Parties") respectfully submit the following proposed page limits for briefing on Defendants' anticipated motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF No. 81 (the "Complaint"). All parties who have appeared in this case via counsel have consented to this protocol.1

A. Defendants' Moving Briefs

The Complaint is 220 pages and asserts claims against 16 different defendants under eight different theories of liability across a putative class period of nearly five years. To avoid repetitive briefing on legal issues by parties facing similar theories of liability, the Moving Defendants believe the most efficient way to proceed is to organize their motions to dismiss into joint briefs that roughly parallel the theories of liability asserted in the Complaint with similarly situated entities submitting joint briefs. Therefore, the Moving Defendants propose the following page limits (exclusive of exhibits) for their anticipated motions to dismiss, listed in the order in which the parties are listed in the Table of Contents of the Complaint:

* * *

The foregoing briefing represents a total of 160 pages. If each Moving Defendant filed their own memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 2(D) of the Court's Individual Practices, such briefs would have totaled 275 pages in the aggregate.

B. Plaintiff's Opposition Brief(s)

In response to Moving Defendants' proposal, which it finds acceptable, Lead Plaintiff proposes that it be permitted to submit up to 160 pages of opposition briefing in the aggregate (reflecting the total number of pages provided to the Moving Defendants) to be divided or combined in one consolidated brief at Plaintiff's discretion after reviewing the Moving Defendants' opening briefs.

C. Defendants' Reply Brief(s)

The Moving Defendants propose that they be permitted to file reply briefs of no more than one half the page limits of their moving briefs in response to Plaintiff's opposition brief(s) unless some other configuration is warranted in light of the substance and/or structure of those opposition papers.

* * *

Finally, the Parties respectfully request the right to seek modifications to the applicable page limit protocol with respect to Plaintiffs' Opposition Brief(s) and Defendants Reply Briefs after receiving the respective brief(s) to which those filings will respond.

So Ordered.