ORDER DISREGARDING OPPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND STRIKING PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER (ECF Nos. 40, 41, 43)

DEADLINE: AUGUST 6 BY NOON

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

Defendants in this action have filed two motions to dismiss that have been referred to the undersigned for the preparation of findings and recommendations. On June 6, 2018, the state defendants filed a request for an extension of the page limitations on their motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 18.) The district judge granted the request and extended the page limitations for both the state defendants' motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs' opposition. (ECF No. 20.) On July 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a request for an extension of the page limitations for their oppositions which was opposed by State Defendants. (ECF Nos. 36, 37.) On July 19, 2018, an order issued denying Plaintiffs' request for an extension of the page limitations. (ECF No. 38.) The order provided that "Plaintiffs' points and authorities in the opposition to the State Defendants' motion to dismiss shall not exceed 33 pages and the points and authorities in the opposition to the County Defendants' motion to dismiss shall not exceed 25 pages. Plaintiffs may file a renewed request with additional information in an attempt to show good cause for an extension of these page limits." (Id. at 3:9-13.) Plaintiffs did not file a renewed request to extend the page limits for the oppositions.

On August 1, 2018, Plaintiffs filed three oppositions; two notices of judicial notice of additional facts discovered; declarations of Gina Gregory; Matthew G. Gregory, and Matthew J. Gregory; and two notices of intent to appear in opposition to the motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 39-48. The first two documents filed, Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice and opposition to State Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 39, 40) were refiled with slight changes (ECF Nos. 42, 43). The Court shall disregard the documents originally filed. Counsel is advised that the prudent practice would be to either caption the later filed documents as amended or to notify the Clerk of the Court that the originally filed documents were filed in error and request that they be terminated from the docket.

The Court has reviewed the oppositions that were filed by Plaintiffs. While the oppositions themselves at first glance would appear to comply with the order regarding page limitations, upon review each of the oppositions have large single-spaced footnotes containing case law or argument that are substantive. For example, Plaintiff's memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the State Defendants' motion to dismiss is thirty-three pages in length, but contains fourteen footnotes with substantive law or argument that occupy approximately one third to one half of the page. (ECF No. 43 at pp. 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 26, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41.) Had this law and argument been included in the body of the opposition, rather than in a single-spaced footnote, it would have substantially increased the length of the brief to well over the thirty-three page limit imposed by the court. Review of the opposition to the County Defendants, while not as egregious, shows similar use of footnotes which would violate the Court's order had the information been included in the body of the brief. (ECF No. 41 at 10, 11, 12, 29, 31.)

The Court finds that this is an attempt to avoid the page limitations set forth in the June 12, 2018 and July 19, 2018 orders. Thus, the Court shall strike Plaintiffs oppositions from the record and require Plaintiffs to file an opposition that complies with the July 19, 2018 order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.