Thunderhawk v. County of Morton, 1:18-cv-212. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. North Dakota
Number: infdco20190117i61
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER (AMENDED) GRANTING MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS CHARLES S. MILLER, JR. , Magistrate Judge . On January 11, 2019, Defendants Doug Burgum, Jack Dalrymple, Grant Levi, and Michael Gerhardt, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as the "State Defendants") filed: (1) a motion to dismiss; (2) a motion for leave to file a brief in support of their motion to dismiss that exceeds the 40-page limit set forth in D.N.D. Civ. L.R. 7.1(A); and (3) a supporting brief that is substantively 62 pages in length.
Summary: ORDER (AMENDED) GRANTING MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS CHARLES S. MILLER, JR. , Magistrate Judge . On January 11, 2019, Defendants Doug Burgum, Jack Dalrymple, Grant Levi, and Michael Gerhardt, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as the "State Defendants") filed: (1) a motion to dismiss; (2) a motion for leave to file a brief in support of their motion to dismiss that exceeds the 40-page limit set forth in D.N.D. Civ. L.R. 7.1(A); and (3) a supporting brief that is substantively 62 pages in length. ..
More
ORDER (AMENDED) GRANTING MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS
CHARLES S. MILLER, JR., Magistrate Judge.
On January 11, 2019, Defendants Doug Burgum, Jack Dalrymple, Grant Levi, and Michael Gerhardt, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as the "State Defendants") filed: (1) a motion to dismiss; (2) a motion for leave to file a brief in support of their motion to dismiss that exceeds the 40-page limit set forth in D.N.D. Civ. L.R. 7.1(A); and (3) a supporting brief that is substantively 62 pages in length.1
The court GRANTS the State Defendants' motion (Doc. No. 29) and authorizes their filing of their supporting brief. Additionally, the court authorizes Plaintiffs to file 62-page response to the State Defendants' motion.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The State Defendants' supporting brief incorporated a title page and an 11-page table of contents . In its original order the court included the table of contents and title page in the page count and in so doing stated that the supporting brief was 74 pages in length. The court now amends its order to reflect that the supporting brief was substantively 62 pages in length.
2. Any table of contents or title page that the plaintiff may incorporate into her supporting brief will not count toward the 62-page limit.
Source: Leagle
