Simpson-Vlach v. Michigan Department of Education

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Rita C. Simpson-Vlach, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 21-cv-11532

v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge Michigan Department of Education, et al., Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE [39] TO STATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN AUTOMATIC AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [27]

On August 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a response (ECF No. 39) to the motion to dismiss filed by State Defendants the Michigan Department of Education and Dr. Michael F. Rice. (ECF No. 20.) Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 5.1 provides that “[p]apers presented for filing” must have margins that are “at least one inch on the top, sides, and bottom,” and the “type size of all text and footnotes must be no smaller than 10-1/2 characters per inch (non-proportional) or 14 point (proportional).” E.D. Mich. LR 5.1(a)(2)–(3). However, the margins in Plaintiffs’ response are not “at least one inch on the top, sides, and bottom.” E.D. Mich. LR 5.1(a)(2). In addition, the text and footnotes in

Plaintiffs’ response are in “Times New Roman, a proportional font,” but are not in “the 14-point font that the Local Rules . . . requires.” Numatics,

Inc. v. Balluff, Inc., No. 13-11049, 2014 WL 12662310, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 6, 2014), on reconsideration, No. 13-11049, 2014 WL 6750589 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 1, 2014). Plaintiffs’ response is therefore not in compliance

with Local Rule 5.1.1 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ response to State Defendants’ motion to dismiss is stricken. For the same reasons, the Court also strikes

Plaintiffs’ motion for an automatic and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 27) filed on August 4, 2021. Plaintiffs may refile their response to State Defendants’ motion to dismiss and their motion for an automatic and

preliminary injunction, but these filings—and all future filings—must comply with the Local Rules. If Plaintiffs choose to refile their response

1 The Court notes that Plaintiffs’ response is also not in compliance with Local Rule 7.1, which provides that “[t]he text of a brief supporting a motion or response, including footnotes and signatures, may not exceed 25 pages. A person seeking to file a longer brief may apply ex parte in writing setting forth the reasons.” E.D. Mich. 7.1(d)(3)(A). Plaintiffs’ response brief is twenty-six pages long, and Plaintiffs did not seek permission to file a brief that exceeds the page limit set forth in Local Rule 7.1. to State Defendants’ motion to dismiss, they must do so by September 1, 2021. State Defendants will then have fourteen days from the date on

which Plaintiffs refile their response to file a reply. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 25, 2021 s/Judith E. Levy Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 25, 2021. s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager