Kamradt v. Esurance Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 31, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01445
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 REBECCA KAMRADT, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01445-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL v. BRIEFING 13 ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Parties’ cross motions for summary 17 judgment and responsive briefs (Dkt. Nos. 46, 60, 62, 64-11) do not comply with the formatting 18 requirements set forth in the Local Civil Rules and this Court’s Chambers Procedures. See LCR 19 10(e)(6); Judge Tana Lin, Standing Order for Civil Cases, Section II, available at 20 https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/judges/lin-procedures. In particular, both Parties fail to 21 consistently provide pincites to specific pages in the record. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 46 at 15 22

23 1 Plaintiff filed a corrected summary judgment motion on June 13, 2024, to include a Table of Contents and Table of Authorities as required by this Court’s Chambers Procedures. See Dkt. No. 64 (Praecipe to Plaintiff’s Motion for 24 Summary Judgment). 1 (Defendant’s summary judgment motion); see generally Dkt. No. 64-1 (Plaintiff’s corrected 2 summary judgment motion). Further, Plaintiff frequently cites to Exhibit 2 of the Declaration of 3 Heather N. Derenski (Dkt. No. 52-2), a seventy-seven page document containing hundreds of 4 entries and what appears to be the entirety of the claim notes that Defendant has produced

5 regarding Plaintiff’s collision claim. Courts should not have to guess what evidence a party 6 believes supports a specific argument. “Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in 7 briefs.” United States v. Osborne, No. C20-10404, 2022 WL 264555, at *2 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 8 2022) (internal citation omitted). “Nor are they archaeologists searching for treasure.” Krause v. 9 Nev. Mut. Ins. Co., No. C12-342, 2014 WL 99178, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 3, 2014). Critically, 10 “[j]udges need not paw over files without assistance from the parties.” Orr v. Bank of Am., 284 11 F.3d 764, 775 (9th Cir. 2002) superseded by Rule on other grounds as stated in David v. Betts, 12 No. C20-2, 2024 WL 2214613, at *17, n.20 (D. Haw. May 15, 2024) (internal citation omitted). 13 The Parties are DIRECTED to re-file their motions and briefs with in-text docket citations 14 to specific page numbers for each factual assertion by no later than August 5, 2024. For ease of

15 reference, the Parties are encouraged to use the following format: “Dkt. No. [ECF document 16 number] at [page number],” (e.g., “Dkt. No. 6 at 2.”). No additional words (facts, authorities, or 17 arguments) may be added apart from provision of pincites and other formatting updates. 18 19 Dated this 31st day of July 2024. 20 A 21 Tana Lin United States District Judge 22 23 24