KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge.

Before the Court is Clark County Nevada et al.'s (Defendants) Motion for Summary Judgment (#66). Defendants subsequently filed two different errata (##69, 70) to this motion. Plaintiffs responded (#73), and then filed a "Declaration" regarding Defendants' Motion (#74), followed by a list of exhibits to that "Declaration" (#75). Plaintiffs then filed a second "Declaration" (#76) followed by exhibits to that declaration (#77), and also responded a second time to Defendants' motion (#78). Defendants then responded to one of Plaintiffs' "Declarations" (#81), replied to Plaintiffs' response (#82), responded to Plaintiffs' other "Declaration" (#84), and then replied a second time to Plaintiffs' second response (#85). All of these except the underlying motion were filed within a six week period. Now that the parties have paused to catch their breath, the Court will address them.

Such blatant disregard for the both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules is inexcusable and will not be tolerated further. In fact, review of the documents and practices referenced above gives the Court strong evidence of Rule 11 violations. The parties are on notice that further violations will be dealt with under Rule 11.

Should the parties feel the need to supplement their motions, they must do so in accordance with both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules. In particular, the parties may file the enumerated pleadings found in Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a), or they may file motions under Rule 7(b). There is no provision for the independent filing of "Declarations." Whatever evidence is required for the resolution of the motion should be filed as an exhibit to the motion, the response, or the reply. If a motion is filed, then a single response is permitted, followed by a single reply. Local Rule 7-2. Any sur-responses or sur-replies must be permitted by the Court, based upon a proper motion. Further, the rules governing Motions for Summary Judgment are straightforward, and found in Rule 56, and Local Rule 56-1. The Court strongly encourages the parties to review these and all other relevant Federal and Local Rules.

The parties apparently feel that their motion, responses, and replies are thoroughly deficient, requiring extensive supplementation and correction. The Court cannot disagree. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY STRIKES documents ## 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 84 and 85. The Court HEREBY DENIES without prejudice Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#66).

The Court also HEREBY ORDERS the following:

1. Defendants will file a single procedurally and substantively correct and complete Motion for Summary Judgment on or before May 14, 2014.

2. Plaintiffs will file a single procedurally and substantively correct and complete response on or before May 28, 2014.

3. Defendants will file a single procedurally and substantively correct and complete reply on or before June 4, 2014. While motions for summary judgment typically receive longer timeframes for filings, the parties have already prepared all of the material to be submitted. The only task before the parties is to winnow irrelevant and improper material and distill the remainder into a single filing. Accordingly, the abbreviated timeframe is generous and warranted.

4. All filings are to be in a searchable PDF format. Filings which the Court cannot search electronically will be stricken as improper.