IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
July 2, 2009
RICHARD SCHNEIDER, PLAINTIFF,
PROTESTANT MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., D/B/A MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MEMORIAL CONVALESCENT CENTER, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for additional pages to respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 28). Plaintiff asks for ten (10) additional pages to respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment and statement of uncontroverted material facts. Southern District of Illinois Local Rule 7.1(d) provides that briefs shall not exceed 20 pages and that requests for additional pages "are not favored." Plaintiff argues that Defendant has essentially filed a 35-page motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff is unable to respond to the lengthy summary judgment motion within the 20 page limitation provided.
However, Plaintiff has already raised this argument once before in his motion to strike Defendant's summary judgment motion (Doc. 22), arguing that Defendant had circumvented the Court's 20-page limit for briefing by submitting a 16-page Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts (Doc. 21-2) which, in essence, allowed Defendant to submit a 36-page brief. The Court denied that motion, finding that Defendant had not violated the local rules or other federal rules of civil procedure because the attachment was not part of Defendant's brief and because the rules did not prevent the filing of the attachment.
Here, Plaintiff essentially raises the same argument, now arguing that he needs additional pages to respond to what Plaintiff describes as "essentially, a 35-page motion for summary judgment." However, as the Court stated in its Order denying Plaintiff's motion to strike (Doc. 26), Defendant's attachment is not part of its brief. Defendant's brief was 20 pages, within the page limitation imposed by the local rules. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant's motion is not exceptionally long or complex enough to warrant an exception to the general rule. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for additional pages to respond is DENIED (Doc. 28).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David R Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.