MERIDIAN LABORATORY CORPORATION v. SEBELIUS, 3:11-cv-00406-W. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20120203957
Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 01, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 01, 2012
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties' "Joint Motion to Set Briefing Schedule and to Extend Page Limitations" (Doc. No. 13). The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART that motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the briefing schedule is set in this case as follows: 1. Plaintiff's motion and memorandum on summary judgment shall be due February 23, 2012; 2. Defendant's motion and memorandum on summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiff's motio
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties' "Joint Motion to Set Briefing Schedule and to Extend Page Limitations" (Doc. No. 13). The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART that motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the briefing schedule is set in this case as follows: 1. Plaintiff's motion and memorandum on summary judgment shall be due February 23, 2012; 2. Defendant's motion and memorandum on summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiff's motion..
More
ORDER
FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties' "Joint Motion to Set Briefing Schedule and to Extend Page Limitations" (Doc. No. 13). The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART that motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the briefing schedule is set in this case as follows:
1. Plaintiff's motion and memorandum on summary judgment shall be due February 23, 2012;
2. Defendant's motion and memorandum on summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiff's motion shall be due April 9, 2012;
3. Plaintiff's opposition and reply shall be due April 30, 2012; and
4. Defendant's reply shall be due May 21, 2012.
The Court DENIES that portion of the parties' motion requesting an extension of the "page limitations." Specifically, the parties are to be guided by this Court's standing orders. In so doing, motions in support of or responses in opposition to dispositive motions in this case shall be 6,000 words; and replies shall be limited to 2,000 words.1 (See 3:07-mc-47, Doc. No. 2, p. 10). The parties should attach a certificate of compliance to their filings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. To the extent counsel contends these word limitations are too restrictive, the Court notes that it anticipates holding a hearing in this matter whereby the parties will have an opportunity to present oral argument to supplement their briefs.
Source: Leagle
