criticized the plaintiff’s use of extra-record materials.
at *1 n.1. Yet
also expressly criticized the plaintiff for filing a “separately paginated” statement of facts.
at *2 n.3. Defendants miss this second point.Defendants’ alternative argument that their filing should be allowed because similarlyimproper filings were not challenged in other cases is nonsense.
There is no indication that anyparty objected to the submissions in those cases. All that can be said about them is that thecourts in those cases did not strike the procedurally defective documents
Cf. Ariz.Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn
, 131 S. Ct. 1436, 1448 (2011) (explaining that a conclusionthat is overlooked, not discussed, or assumed
is not precedent).Under the applicable rules, this is not the time for Defendants to argue that they neededmore pages to explain their seizure of the Bank.
ECF No. 103 at 6 n.7. If they neededadditional pages, they should have sought them from the Court before filing their memorandum.
LCvR 7(e) (barring memoranda of points and authorities exceeding 45 pages “without priorapproval of the court”). Having failed to do so, they must live with the consequences. Theseparate statement of facts should be stricken.
Oddly, several of Defendants’ cited cases did not involve relevant submissions that exceeded thepage limit. In
Kight v. United States
, No. 10-836 (D.D.C. filed May 17, 2010), the defendant’s separatestatement of facts and memorandum totaled only 34 pages.
ECF Nos. 16-1 and 1-2. In
Bean Dredging LLC v. United States
, No. 08-1508 (D.D.C. filed Aug. 28, 2008), the defendant’s statement of facts and memorandum was 38 pages, while the plaintiff’s was just 19 pages.
ECF Nos. 19 and 20.And the government’s memorandum and statement of facts in
Association of Civilian Technicians, Inc. v.United States
, No. 07-1747, (D.D.C. filed Sept. 27, 2007), was 44 pages (excluding signature blocks).
ECF No. 6. Defendants attempt to inflate the page count in each of these cases by counting exhibits.But exhibits are not attempts to evade the page limit on argument; Defendants’ submissions here are
In past cases, government parties have argued that Rule 7(h)(2) bars separate statements of fact.
See Def. Fed. Election Comm’n’s Mem. of Points & Auths. In Support of Its Mot. for Summ. J. and inOpp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J.
, 2 n.2,
Nader v. FEC
, No. 10-989 (D.D.C. filed Feb. 23, 2011), ECF No.17 (“Because this case involves review of an administrative record, the Commission includes thestatement of facts rather than a separate statement of material facts and genuine issues.
LCvR7(h)(2). In addition to his improperly-filed statement of material facts, plaintiff also …”). Applying
Case 1:11-cv-00408-ABJ Document 104 Filed 05/30/12 Page 2 of 4