MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

PAULA XINIS, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and two Motions for Leave to File Excess Pages. ECF Nos. 78, 84, 85. All three motions were filed by Defendant Mehdi Dehghan.

Dehghan filed his motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on February 10, 2017. ECF No. 66. On February 11, 2017, Plaintiff Farhad Dastranj filed his own motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, Dehghan then had within fourteen days of the service of Dastranj's motion to file a memorandum in opposition. See Md. Local Rule 105.2(a). On February 25, Dehghan filed a motion for extension of time to file his responsive brief. ECF No. 74. The Court granted Dehghan's motion on February 27, providing him an additional two days to file his response. ECF No. 76. That same day, Dehghan filed a document titled "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment." ECF No. 75. The Clerk correctly marked the document as filed in error because this document, while labeled a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, was entered with the event code related to a response in opposition to Dastranj's motion for summary judgment. Moreover, the document itself appeared nonresponsive. The Court therefore struck Dehghan's first attempt at filing his response and ordered him to file a revised response by March 7. ECF No. 79.

On March 7, Dehghan filed another motion for extension of time. ECF No. 80. The Court again granted Dehghan's request and directed him to file his response the next day. Dehghan was unable to meet this deadline either, and therefore filed his third extension request, ECF No. 82, which was granted, ECF No. 83. Astonishingly, Dehghan failed for a third time to meet the Court's deadline. He then filed is fourth request for an extension. ECF No. 84. Two days later, Dehghan filed a second Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and the next day finally filed his fifty-one page responsive brief. Cf. Md. Local Rule 105.3 ("Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, memoranda in support of a motion or in opposition thereto and trial briefs shall not exceed thirty-five (35) pages . . . .").

Upon review of Dehghan's response in opposition to Dastranj's motion for summary judgment, it is clear that Dehghan could have met the thirty-five page limit had he drafted the memorandum with level of care expected from represented parties practicing in this Court. Indeed, a full seven pages of the currently filed pleading bear no resemblance to this case. ECF No. 86-1 at 37-44. The Court's research revealed that these seven pages were directly copied, without citation or reference, from an unrelated opinion rendered by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.1 In light of this Court granting Dehghan multiple extensions to accommodate his untimely filing, and given his failure to obtain court permission in advance to file a pleading in excess of 35 pages, Dehghan leaves this Court with no choice but to strike the pleading after page 35 to its conclusion. Cf. Costley v. City of Westminster, No. CV GLR-16-1447, 2017 WL 35437, at *3 n.7 (D. Md. Jan. 4, 2017) (declining to consider any argument made by plaintiff after page 35 of his fifty-seven page memorandum). Pursuant to Local Rule 105.2(a), Plaintiff may file a reply memorandum within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

Accordingly, it is this 15th day of March, 2017, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED that:

1. The Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Defendant MEHDI DEHGHAN (ECF No. 78) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED AS MOOT;

2. The Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Defendant MEHDI DEHGHAN (ECF No. 85) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED;

3. The Motion for Extension of Time to File Response filed by Defendant MEHDI DEHGHAN (ECF No. 84) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED AS MOOT;

>4. Plaintiff FARHAD DASTRANJ is DIRECTED to file a Reply to Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment if he chooses within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

2. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel for the parties.