Kenny v. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, C14-1987 RSM. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20180314g80
Visitors: 19
Filed: Mar. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR OVER-LENGTH BRIEF RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Pacific Investment Management Company LLC and PIMCO Investments LLC ("Defendants")'s Motion to file over-length briefing on their upcoming motion for summary judgment. Dkt. #147. Defendants' Motion is five sentences long and requests an increase from 24 to 40 pages of briefing. Id. Defendants cite Local Rule 7(f) for authority. That rule beg
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR OVER-LENGTH BRIEF RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Pacific Investment Management Company LLC and PIMCO Investments LLC ("Defendants")'s Motion to file over-length briefing on their upcoming motion for summary judgment. Dkt. #147. Defendants' Motion is five sentences long and requests an increase from 24 to 40 pages of briefing. Id. Defendants cite Local Rule 7(f) for authority. That rule begi..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR OVER-LENGTH BRIEF
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Pacific Investment Management Company LLC and PIMCO Investments LLC ("Defendants")'s Motion to file over-length briefing on their upcoming motion for summary judgment. Dkt. #147. Defendants' Motion is five sentences long and requests an increase from 24 to 40 pages of briefing. Id.
Defendants cite Local Rule 7(f) for authority. That rule begins, "[m]otions seeking approval to file an over-length motion or brief are disfavored but may be filed subject to the following [procedural requirements]." LCR 7(f) (emphasis added). Although Defendants have met the stated procedural requirements, they have provided zero argument or evidence to support their request. Plaintiff does not oppose this Motion, however the parties cannot simply stipulate to filing over-length briefing without explaining to the Court why it is necessary. The Court is aware of the nature of this case, and believes the parties can present their arguments and evidence within 24 pages.
Having reviewed Defendants' Motion and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendants' Motion for Over-length Brief (Dkt. #147) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
