ORDER RESOLVING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

Re: Dkt. No. 326

JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.

Now before the Court for consideration is the administrative motion for clarification of the Court's standing order regarding motions for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for leave to file more than one motion for summary judgment, filed by the MoneyMutual Defendants. Pursuant to this Court's Standing Orders, "[a]bsent of a showing of good cause, the Court will address only one motion for summary judgment per side." (Civil Standing Orders ¶ 9.) The MoneyMutual Defendants ask for clarification of the term "side." The term "side" as it is used in the Court's standing order does not refer to each individual party. Rather, it means all Plaintiffs on one "side," and all Defendants on the other "side." However, as the Standing Order indicates, the Court will consider making an exception to its general rule on a showing of good cause.

The MoneyMutual Defendants also ask the Court to deviate from its general rule and to permit them to file ten (10) motions for summary judgment and to file those motions on a serial basis. Plaintiffs oppose those requests and the alternative request to file four motions for summary judgment, grouped by particular defendants. The Court concludes that the MoneyMutual Defendants have not shown good cause to file ten motions for summary judgment. In addition, the Court also finds that the MoneyMutual Defendants have not shown good cause, or that judicial efficiency would be served by the filing of serial motions for summary judgment.

Based on the current record, it also is not clear to the Court that the issues to be presented differ so greatly that the MoneyMutual Defendants could not file a joint motion for summary judgment, rather than four motions grouped by Deffendants. Plaintiffs have noted that they would be willing to allow for an enlargement of this Court's normal page limitatiions, so long as they are provided a similar enlargement for their opposition brief.

Therefore, the Court will require a joint motion for summary judgment from the MoneyMutual Defendants, and it shall enlarge the page limitations from 25 to 40 pages. Plaintiffs may have 40 pages to oppose, and the MoneyMutual Defendants may have 25 pages to reply. The Court would be willing to consider grouped motions for summary judgment, if the MoneyMutual Defendants can provide this Court with more detail about the differing natuure of their arguments. However, if the Court permits multiple motions for summary judgment, it would also cconsider whether it should reduce the pages allowed per motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.