Cervantes v. Transdev Services, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff William Cervantes filed an ex parte application for leave to file a 25-page motion in limine, exceeding the 10-page limit set in the Court's Scheduling Order. The Court denied the application, finding that Plaintiff failed to justify the excess length and filed the request too close to the deadline.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's ex parte application for leave to file excess pages for a motion in limine.“Therefore, the Court will not exercise its discretion to grant Plaintiff leave to file excess pages.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that it has inherent discretion to manage its docket and set page limits. The plaintiff requested a 150% increase over the already extended limit (from 10 to 25 pages) without providing specific justification beyond a general assertion of necessity due to the volume of testimony. The court's reliance on the plaintiff's failure to show good cause and the late timing of the request (six days before the deadline) provides a sufficient basis for the denial under the court's discretionary authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly cites the local rule and the scheduling order that established the 10-page limit. It applies the correct standard (court's discretion) and provides specific factual reasons for the denial (lack of justification, late filing). The reminder regarding the scope of motions in limine is appropriate and consistent with the local rules cited.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM CERVANTES, Case No.: 20-cv-01430-AJB-WVG Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX v. PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE 13 TO FILE EXCESS PAGES (Doc. No. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.; and 14 45.) DOES 1 through 25, 15 Defendants.
16 Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff William Cervantes’ (“Plaintiff”) ex 17 parte application for leave to file a motion in limine in excess of the Court’s Civil 18 Procedure Rule VI(B) page limitation. (Doc. No. 45.) Defendant Transdev Services, Inc.’s 19 (“Transdev”) filed an opposition in response. (Doc. No. 46.) For the reasons set forth 20 below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte motion. 21 Civil Case Procedure Rule VI(B)(1) of the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, U.S. 22 District Judge, provides “[e]ach side is allowed a maximum of five (5) motions in limine” 23 and “[e]ach motion and each opposition are limited to five (5) pages in length.” Given the 24 district court’s inherent power to control their dockets, whether to grant leave to exceed the 25 page limits set forth in the Judge Battaglia’s Civil Case Procedures appears to be at the full 26 discretion of the Court. See United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) 27 (en banc) (noting “judges exercise substantial discretion over what happens inside the 28 1 || courtroom’). In this Court’s December 17, 2021 Scheduling Order, the Court increased the 2 || page limit for each motion in limine and each opposition to 10 pages. (Doc. No. 41 at 2.) 3 Here, Plaintiff requests leave to file a 25-page motion—15 pages over the page limit 4 || imposed by the December 2021 Scheduling Order. (Doc. No. 41 at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that 5 || while he attempted to stay within the page limit, the excess pages are necessary for Plaintiff 6 || to adequately argue his motion due to the amount of testimony provided by Transdev. (/d.) 7 || Transdev argues in response that Plaintiff fails to provide good cause for requesting an 8 || extension of the page limit. (Doc. No. 46 at 2.) The Court agrees with Transdev. 9 Through this Court’s December 2021 Scheduling Order, Plaintiff was put on notice 10 both the February 28, 2022 filing deadline and page limits for all motions in limine. 11 ||}(Doc. No. 41 at 1-2.) Waiting until the eleventh hour, Plaintiff filed the instant ex parte 12 || application six days before the motions in limine filing deadline. Moreover, exceeding the 13 || 10-page limit imposed by the December 2021 Scheduling Order is excessive, and Plaintiff 14 || fails to justify the need to exceed the page limit. Therefore, the Court will not exercise its 15 || discretion to grant Plaintiff leave to file excess pages. 16 Counsel are also reminded that “Motions in limine must be limited in scope to 17 || evidentiary issues where attempts to “unring the bell’ would be unduly prejudicial or futile. 18 ||Motions for judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment or summary adjudication, 19 || Daubert, leave to amend or bifurcation are not in limine motions within the scope of this 20 || order.” Ud. at 2.) The Court narrowly construes this restriction. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: February 25, 2022 © g 23 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28