Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

HARDWICK v. ELDORADO RESORTS CORPORATION, 2:14-cv-01651-RFB-PAL. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20160308709 Visitors: 3
Filed: Feb. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 25, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION OF BRIEFS AND POINTS AND AUTHORITIES RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . Pursuant Local Rules 7-1, 7-2 and 7-4, Plaintiff Christine M. Hardwick ("Plaintiff" or "Villarreal") and Defendants Eldorado Resorts Corporation ("Eldorado"), Michael Marrs ("Marrs"), Kristen Beck ("Beck"), and Dominic Taleghani ("Taleghani") (sometimes hereinafter referred to collectively as "Defendants"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITATION OF BRIEFS AND POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Pursuant Local Rules 7-1, 7-2 and 7-4, Plaintiff Christine M. Hardwick ("Plaintiff" or "Villarreal") and Defendants Eldorado Resorts Corporation ("Eldorado"), Michael Marrs ("Marrs"), Kristen Beck ("Beck"), and Dominic Taleghani ("Taleghani") (sometimes hereinafter referred to collectively as "Defendants"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and jointly move this Court to allow the parties to exceed the presumptive page limitations contained in LR 7-4 for points and authorities in support of motions and responses related to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to be filed in this case — to wit: Defendant's points and authorities in support of the Motion, Plaintiff's response thereto, and Defendant's reply.

Defendant and Plaintiff intend to make every effort to be as concise as possible in their arguments and factual statements. However, based on the number of claims at issue, each which must be addressed separately (many both factually and legally), it is not possible for the parties to adequately address all of the claims at issue within the 30 page presumptive limit contained in LR 7-4, or the 20 page presumptive limit for reply briefs. Accordingly, the parties jointly request that the Court allow: (1) Defendant up to 40 pages for its memorandum in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) Plaintiff up to 40 pages for his response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Defendant up to 30 pages for its reply in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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