United States District Court, D. New Jersey
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE, DISTRICT JUDGE:
matter comes before the Court by way of Motion to Strike the
Expert Opinions and Testimony of Christopher Chapman, filed
by Defendants County of Camden, Camden County Police
Department, Nicholas Marchiafava, John Scott Thomson, and
Orlando Cuevas (hereinafter “Moving Defendants”)
on July 25, 2018. (See Motion to Strike [Docket Item
142].) After being granted numerous extensions, Plaintiff
Xavier Ingram filed a brief in opposition to Moving
Defendants' Motion to Strike Dr. Chapman's Testimony
on October 2, 2018. (See Brief in Opposition [Docket
Item 177].) On October 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed an
additional document in opposition to Moving Defendants'
present Motion to Strike Dr. Chapman's Testimony, titled
“Plaintiff's Respone [sic] to Defendant's [sic]
Schedules (A-E).” (See Further Opposition
[Docket Item 178].) On October 22, 2018, Moving Defendants
filed an additional Motion to Strike Plaintiff's
additional document in opposition to the underlying Motion to
Strike, as overlength. (See Motion to Strike
Plaintiff's Brief [Docket Item 198].) On November 5,
2018, Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for leave to file an
overlength brief nunc pro tunc. (See
Cross-Motion [Docket Item 202].)
Court has considered the submissions and shall decide the
pending cross-motions [Docket Items 198 & 202] pursuant
to Rule 78(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.
the reasons set forth below and for good cause shown, Moving
Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's overlength
submission [Docket Item 198] will be denied, Plaintiff's
cross-motion for leave to file an overlength submission
nunc pro tunc [Docket Item 202] will be granted, and
Moving Defendants will be granted leave to file an overlength
reply brief with regards to their pending Motion to Strike
Dr. Chapman's Testimony [Docket Item 142], by no later
than November 30, 2018.
Court notes that the permissible length of briefs submitted
to the Court is governed by Rule 7.2, L.Civ.R., which
provides, in relevant part:
(b) Any brief shall include a table of contents and a table
of authorities and shall not exceed 40 ordinary typed or
printed pages (15 pages for any reply brief submitted under
L. Civ.R. 7.1(d)(3) and any brief in support of or in
opposition to a motion for reconsideration submitted under
L.Civ.R. 7.1(i)), excluding pages required for the table of
contents and authorities. Briefs of greater length will only
be accepted if special permission of the Judge or Magistrate
Judge is obtained prior to submission of the brief.
[. . .]
(d) Each page of a brief shall contain double-spaced text
and/or single-spaced footnotes or inserts. Typeface shall be
in 12-point non-proportional font (such as Courier New 12) or
an equivalent 14-point proportional font (such as Times New
Roman 14). If a 12-point proportional font is used instead,
the page limits shall be reduced by 25 percent (e.g., the 40
page limit becomes 30 pages in this font and the 15 page
limit becomes 11.25 pages). Footnotes shall be printed in the
same size of type utilized in the text.
L. Civ.R. 7.2.
Moving Defendants' initial brief in support of their
Motion to Strike Dr. Chapman's Testimony appears to be
written in 12-point Times New Roman font, therefore, under
Rule 7.2(d), L.Civ.R., the brief is limited to a maximum
length of thirty (30) pages. (See Moving Defs.'
Br. [Docket Item 142-1].) Moving Defendant's brief
includes precisely thirty (30) pages, including seventeen
(17) double-spaced pages of legal argument, followed by
thirteen (13) single-spaced pages that Moving
Defendants have termed Schedules A-E. (See id.)
Moving Defendants' “Schedules” are not a
“table of contents and authorities, ” as
contemplated by Rule 7.2, L.Civ.R., therefore the length of
these “Schedules” would contribute to the
thirty-page limit set by the Rule. These
“Schedules” are considered part of the argument
in the brief because they explain and identify the allegedly
objectionable parts of Dr. Chapman's opinions and
testimony to which Moving Defendants' arguments are
directed. These “Schedules” are not
double-spaced, as required by Rule 7.2(d), L.Civ.R., and if
they were the combined length of Moving Defendants' brief
would certainly exceed the thirty-page limit provided by the
Rule. Therefore, the Court finds that Moving Defendants'
brief filed in support of their Motion to Strike Dr.
Chapman's Testimony is itself in violation of the length
requirements set forth by Local Civil Rule 7.2.
Moving Defendants did not seek leave to file an overlength
brief prior to filing their overlength brief in support of
their Motion to Strike Dr. Chapman's Testimony, as
required by Rule 7.2(b), L.Civ.R., nor have they ever filed a
motion seeking leave to file such a brief nunc pro
tunc. Nevertheless, in light of the complexity of the
motion, the Court finds that permitting consideration of the
brief is the most efficient and appropriate course of action
at this time, and therefore the Court shall consider Moving
Defendants' overlength brief.
Plaintiff's brief in opposition to the Motion to Strike
Dr. Chapman's Testimony contains just over twenty-five
(25) pages of double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font,
in compliance with the requirements of Rule 7.2, L.Civ.R.
(See Brief in Opposition [Docket Item 177].)
Plaintiff filed an additional document in response to the
“Schedules” attached to Moving Defendants'
brief, which is over fifty-eight (58) pages long.
(See Further Opposition [Docket Item 178].) That
additional document is clearly argument and its length must
be included in the page-count. Plaintiff did not seek leave
to file an overlength brief prior to filing this document.
Submission of such a lengthy brief is a clear violation of
Rule 7.2, L.Civ.R. However, this brief was submitted in part
to respond to the overlength brief filed by Moving
Defendants, described supra, and it also reproduces
large portions of Moving Defendants' overlength brief in
a manner that makes the document very organized and helpful
to the Court's consideration of the underlying motion.
Therefore, again given the complexity of the motion, the
Court shall deny Moving Defendants' motion to strike
Plaintiff's overlength submission [Docket Item 198], and
grant Plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to file his
overlength submission nunc pro tunc [Docket Item
Additionally, the Court shall grant Moving Defendants leave
to file an overlength reply brief, with regards to their
pending Motion to Strike [Docket Item 142]. Such a reply
brief shall be filed by no later than November 30, 2018 and
shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages of double-spaced,