Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. SANDOZ INC., 2:12-cv-00111-GMN-NJK. (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20140602c52 Visitors: 2
Filed: May 30, 2014
Latest Update: May 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge. Pending before the Court are the three Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 140, 146, 150) filed by Plaintiffs Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and University of Strathclyde ("Plaintiffs"). Also pending before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 213) filed by Defendant Sandoz Inc. ("Defendant"). I. PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 7-4 Rule 7-4 of the Local Rules of Practice for th
More

ORDER

GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.

Pending before the Court are the three Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 140, 146, 150) filed by Plaintiffs Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and University of Strathclyde ("Plaintiffs").

Also pending before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 213) filed by Defendant Sandoz Inc. ("Defendant").

I. PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 7-4

Rule 7-4 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada provides that "[u]nless otherwise ordered by the Court, pretrial and post-trial briefs and points and authorities in support of, or in response to, motions shall be limited to thirty (30) pages including the motion but excluding exhibits." D. Nev. R. LR 7-4. A party cannot simply avoid this limitation on pages by filing multiple motions. Here, Plaintiffs have done just that. Rather than filing a single Motion for Summary Judgment that complies with Local Rule 7-4, Plaintiffs opted to file three separate Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, which amount to more than 60 pages of briefing. The Court will not permit Plaintiffs to circumvent the Local Rules in this manner. Accordingly, the Court hereby STRIKES Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment. However, the Court will extend the Dispositive Motions Deadline until June 30, 2014, to allow Plaintiffs adequate time to file a Motion for Summary Judgment that complies with Local Rule 7-4. Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion, which must also comply with the 30-page limit, must be filed by July 21, 2014. Plaintiffs' Reply Brief, which must comply with the 20-page limit in Local Rule 7-4, must be filed by August 4, 2014. No extensions will be granted.

II. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

Because the Court is extending the Dispositive Motions Deadline to allow Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court will likewise grant Defendant an identical extension. Accordingly, the Court will extend the Dispositive Motions Deadline until June 30, 2014, to allow Defendant to file a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion must be filed by July 21, 2014. Defendant's Reply Brief must be filed by August 4, 2014. No extensions will be granted.

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 140, 146, 150) are STRICKEN.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Leave to File (ECF No. 213) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Dispositive Motions Deadline is extended until June 30, 2014, for the limited purpose of allowing each party to file a Motion for Summary Judgment that complies with Local Rule 7-4.

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