ORDER GRANTING IN PART CLASS PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVER-LENGTH MOTIONS

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Class Plaintiffs Gilbert Nguyen and Susan Tan's unopposed motion pursuant to LCR 7(f) for leave to file two over-length motions. Dkt. #122. Plaintiffs seek 20 pages of briefing for both a motion for final approval of the settlement and a motion for attorneys' fees. Id. Both motions would normally be limited to 12 pages under LCR 7(e)(4). Plaintiffs cite as good cause the following: first, that this case "involves complex facts involving alleged statements, misstatements, and/or omissions concerning clinical trials for cancer treatments;" and second, because "Ninth Circuit case law sets forth multi-factored tests for district courts to use in evaluating whether to approve (1) class-action settlements, and (2) fee requests." Id.

The Court finds Plaintiffs have established good cause to add pages to their motion for final approval of settlement, but have failed to establish good cause for the attorneys' fees motion. Although this case may have an unusually complex fact pattern, the standards for granting fees are not particularly unique or onerous in this case, and it is this Court's experience that skilled counsel can make the arguments they need to make in 12 pages.

Having reviewed the relevant pleadings and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to file two over-length motions, Dkt. #122, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file up to 20 pages for their forthcoming motion for final approval of the settlement and plan of distribution. Plaintiffs are urged to stick as close to the original 12 page limit as possible. Any brief in opposition is automatically allowed an equal number of pages. See LCR 7(f)(4). The motion to file an overlength motion regarding attorney's fees is DENIED.