Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Filing
200
ORDER RE PAGE LIMITS AND BRIEFING PROCEDURE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS.Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/30/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
13
14
No. C 10-0121 RS
ORDER RE PAGE LIMITS AND
BRIEFING PROCEDURE FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY
15
16
17
Defendant.
____________________________________/
18
19
20
21
Be brief, be pointed . . . .
Spend not your words on trifles,
but condense . . . .
Press to the close with vigor, once begun;
And leave — how hard the task! —leave off when done.
22
23
—Justice Joseph Story
24
25
The parties have submitted a stipulation to extend the page limits applicable to their pending
26
cross-motions for summary judgment on the Clean Water Act claims in this action. The applicable
27
provisions of Civil Local Rules are not intended to present an arbitrary challenge for counsel, or
28
merely to limit the total number of pages of briefing that the Court must digest. Where the
1
complexity and/or scope of legal and factual issues implicated by a particular motion so warrants,
2
relief from those limits is available. Without the constraints of page limits, however, there is a
3
strong tendency for briefing to become unfocused, repetitive, and ultimately less effective.
4
Complying with page limits requires more careful selection of arguments and facts to be presented,
5
attention to editing, and it generally results in a work product that serves the clients’ interests in
6
presenting their case in the best light possible. Less is often more.
7
Cross-motions for summary judgment can be an efficient tool for resolving or narrowing the
8
issues in appropriate cases. They present a particular risk of unnecessarily repetitive briefing,
9
however, because many of the arguments in support of one side’s motion mirror its arguments
presented in opposition to the cross-motion. Additionally, when the two sides file their opening
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
papers simultaneously, the resulting total of six briefs automatically doubles the default page limits
12
of the rules. For that reason, it is almost never appropriate for cross-motions to be filed
13
simultaneously. The better practice is for one side’s motion to be followed by the other side’s
14
combined opposition and cross-motion, such that a total of only four briefs are filed, including the
15
replies. Where parties utilize that procedure, extensions of the page limits are routinely granted for
16
the second and third briefs in the series, in recognition that they serve dual purposes.
17
Here, a stipulated order was previously entered that did not expressly require the parties to
18
utilize the four-brief approach, and they have already filed their opening briefs separately and
19
simultaneously. Accordingly, they will be permitted to proceed with separate oppositions (each due
20
on September 13, 2012) and separate replies (each due on October 4, 2012). Additionally, although
21
the parties should have obtained a court order addressing the page length limitations prior to filing
22
their opening briefs, their opening briefs will be accepted as filed, oppositions shall not exceed 30
23
pages each, and replies shall not exceed 20 pages each. The parties are reminded that those are
24
maximums, not minimums. They are directed to pay particular attention to avoiding repetition that
25
obfuscates rather than clarifies, and to eliminating presentation of immaterial facts or arguments.
26
The parties’ present stipulation also contemplates that they may file “evidentiary motions” in
27
connection with their cross-summary judgment motions, which would include up to 130 additional
28
pages of briefing. Such separate evidentiary “motions” are not permitted under the Civil Local
2
1
Rules, and will not be allowed here. Any evidentiary and procedural objections must be contained
2
within the opposition briefs, or the reply briefs, whichever may be applicable. See Rule 7-3(a) and
3
(c).
4
This case presents sufficiently complex facts and legal issues to support some departure from
5
ordinary motion procedures and briefing limitations. The parties have already been permitted to
6
carve up the legal issues and to bring a series of summary judgment motions, which is not only
7
contrary to the usual preferred procedures, but also provides them with substantially more briefing,
8
even without extension of the standard limits for each motion. Additionally, as noted, cross-motions
9
generally involve many mirrored arguments. Accordingly, the extensions to the page limits provided
by this order should be more than adequate, notwithstanding the requirement to incorporate any
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
evidentiary objections into the briefing.
12
Prior to proceeding with the next round of summary judgment motions (regarding plaintiff’s
13
claim under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”)), the parties shall submit a
14
stipulation and proposed order that modifies the prior scheduling order (Dkt. No. 190) by providing
15
for a four-brief schedule for those motions and eliminating any reference to related “evidentiary
16
motions.” Absent a showing of good cause for different limitations, the following page limits shall
17
apply to the cross-motions for summary judgment on the RCRA claim: Opening brief, 25 pages;
18
Combined Opposition and Cross-Motion, 40 pages; Combined Reply and Opposition to Cross-
19
Motion, 30 pages; Reply in support of Cross-Motion, 15 pages.
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
25
26
Dated: 8/30/12
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
