In re The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego v. Jane CC Roe SD, by and through her guardian ad litem, Lisa Todd
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered the Appellee's motion to exceed the page limit for its opposition brief in a bankruptcy appeal. The court denied the motion without prejudice and modified the scheduling order to extend the deadline for the Appellee's brief to October 2, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Deny without prejudice Appellee's Motion for Order Authorizing Appellee to Exceed Page Limits“Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Appellee’s Motion (ECF No. 7).” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP) govern the procedure and set a 30-page limit, superseding the Civil Local Rules. The court properly noted that motions to exceed page limits are viewed with disfavor and require substantial grounds. Because the Appellee provided no explanation for why additional pages were necessary, the denial without prejudice was a proper exercise of discretion, allowing the party to refile with proper justification if needed. |
Modify the Scheduling Order to extend the deadline for Appellee's opposition brief“Given today’s deadline for Appellee, the Court MODIFIES the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 2) as follows: Appellee SHALL SERVE AND FILE its opposition brief and any supporting evidence on or before October 2, 2026.” | agree with court The court modified the scheduling order to provide the Appellee with additional time to file its brief, likely to accommodate the denial of the page limit motion and ensure the Appellee has sufficient time to prepare a compliant brief. This is a standard procedural adjustment within the court's inherent power to manage its docket. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable procedural rules (FRBP over Civil Local Rules) and applies the standard that motions to exceed page limits require substantial grounds. The court's reliance on case law supporting the disfavor of excessive briefs and its exercise of discretion to deny the motion without prejudice are sound. The modification of the scheduling order is a reasonable procedural adjustment.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN RE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC Case No.: 26-CV-3558 JLS (DDL) BISHOP OF SAN DIEGO, Bankruptcy No.: 24-2202-CL11 11 Debtor. 12 13 JANE CC ROE SD, by and through her 14 guardian ad litem, Lisa Todd, ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPELLEE’S MOTION 15 Creditor/Appellant, FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING 16 v. APPELLEE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS AND (2) MODIFYING 17 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SCHEDULING ORDER SD, 18 Debtor/Appellee. (ECF No. 7) 19 20 21 Presently before the Court is Appellee The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego’s 22 Motion for Order Authorizing Appellee to Exceed Page Limits (“Mot.,” ECF No. 7). For 23 the following reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Appellee’s Motion 24 and MODIFIES the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 2). 25 Appellee’s brief may not exceed thirty pages without a certificate of compliance or 26 a court order. Although the Local Rules limit briefs to twenty-five pages, CivLR 7.1(h), 27 the Local Rules do not apply when they are inconsistent with rules specifically applicable 28 to bankruptcy proceedings, Id. 1.1(c). The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure govern 1 the procedure in a United States district court, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(a), and limit the 2 length of Appellee’s brief in opposition to thirty (30) pages, Id. 8015(a)(7)(A). There is an 3 exception if the party files a certificate of compliance, Id. 8015(a)(7)(B), and courts must 4 accept documents that comply with these rules, id. 8015(f). Courts may accept documents 5 that do not meet the form requirements by local rule or order. Id. 6 Courts generally look with disfavor on motions to exceed page limits for briefs or 7 memoranda; grants to exceed such limits are the exception. See, e.g., Santos v. Baca, No. 8 2:11-cv-01252-KJD-NJK, 2017 WL 773874, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 28, 2017). Excessive 9 briefs are ill-advised considering the strains on judicial dockets and potential prejudice to 10 the opposing party. See Murray v. City of Bonners Ferry, No. 2:15-cv-00081-REB, 2016 11 WL 3198232, at *2 n.3 (D. Idaho June 8, 2016). Moreover, excessive briefs “may actually 12 hurt a party’s case, making it ‘far more likely that meritorious arguments will be lost amid 13 the mass of detail.’” Elec. Frontier Found. v. C.I.A., No. C 09-03351 SBA, 2012 WL 14 112359, at *1 (N.D. Cal. April 3, 2012) (quoting Fleming v. Cnty. of Kane, State of Ill., 15 855 F.2d 496, 497 (7th Cir. 1988)). In contrast, shorter briefs are typically more helpful to 16 the Court “because the discipline of compression forces the parties to explain clearly and 17 succinctly what has happened, the precise legal issue, and just why they believe the law 18 supports them.” Id. (quoting In re M.S.V., Inc., 892 F.2d 5, 6 (1st Cir. 1989)). Given the 19 district court's inherent power to control their dockets, whether to grant leave to exceed the 20 page limits set forth in the Civil Local Rules appears to be at the full discretion of the Court. 21 See United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (noting also 22 that “judges exercise substantial discretion over what happens inside the courtroom”). 23 Here, Appellee seeks leave to file a brief in excess of the page limit imposed by the 24 Civil Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Appellee does not 25 explain why or to what extent they intend to exceed the thirty-page limit imposed by the 26 Rules but seeks authorization from the Court “out of an abundance of caution.” Mot. at 27 ¶ 7. Without more substantial grounds, the Court will not exercise its discretion to grant 28 leave to file excess pages. If there is good cause to exceed the page limit, Appellee may 1 ||/submit a motion requesting authorization and explaining why additional pages are 2 || necessary. 3 Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Appellee’s Motion 4 ||(ECF No. 7). Given today’s deadline for Appellee, the Court MODIFES the Scheduling 5 || Order (ECF No. 2) as follows: Appellee SHALL SERVE AND FILE its opposition brief 6 || and any supporting evidence on or before October 2, 2026. Appellant MAY SERVE AND 7 || FILE her reply brief and any supporting evidence, if any, on or before October 16, 2026. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: September 25, 2026 tt 10 i Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28