County of Sacramento v. Everest National Ins. Co.

Opinion

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, No. 2:19-cv-00263-MCE-DB Plaintiff, v. ORDER COMPANY, Defendant.

Through this action, Defendant Everest National Insurance Company (“Defendant” or “Everest National”) moved this Court for an order extending the page limit for its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of Motion for Summary Judgment from a 20-page limit to 50 pages. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Ex Parte Application to Extend Page Limit. ECF No. 48 (“Application”). Plaintiff County of Sacramento (“Plaintiff”) timely opposed. Opp’n, ECF No. 49. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Application is GRANTED in part. /// /// /// /// Plaintiff initiated the underlying suit on February 11, 2019, claiming that, inter alia, Defendant was in breach of contract as related to an insurance relationship. ECF No. 1. In the instant Motion, Defendant requests an extension of the page limit for a motion for summary judgment, citing the potential complexity of an insurance indemnity action. Application at 2. Defendant avers that indemnity actions are more complicated than many insurance claims (e.g., duty to defend) because there must be a determination on the actual basis of underlying liability. Application at 2 (citing Armstrong World Indus., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 45 Cal. App. 4th 1, 31 (1996)). Therefore, Defendant claims that the pending motion for summary judgment “will depend, in large part, on the evidence, factual findings and liability established in the Underlying Action.” Application at 2. For its part, Plaintiff “maintains that a 30-page limit is sufficient[,] and a 50-page limit is unnecessary to address legal issues in dispute in this case.” Opp’n at 1. District courts will consider extending page limits for motions, especially under “exceptional circumstances.” See, e.g., ABCDE Operating, LLC v. City of Detroit, 254 F. Supp. 3d 931, 936 n.3 (E.D. Mich. 2017). However, as a sister court in the Central District recently reminded its litigants, judicial resources in our respective districts are “stretched thin; and this is not the Court’s only case.” BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., No. CV 18-1844-GW-KSX, 2019 WL 11670622, at *37 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2019). Extensive motions may jeopardize “securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). In this particular matter, the docket already contains various Defendant requests to modify the case schedule. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 12, 18, 34. With that stated, the Court is persuaded by Plaintiff’s concession that an extension to 30 pages may be sufficient and in the interests of justice. See Opp’n at 1. In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Everest National shall be allowed up to thirty (30) pages for its Memorandum Points and Authorities in support of Motion for Summary Judgment. 2. Any opposition to said motion may also be up to thirty (30) pages in length; and 3. Any reply shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages. Dated: March 9, 2021 □ late JES. tip { AX X - MENTOR UNITED STATES: DISTRICT JUDGE