Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Andrew Thomas M ARICOPA C OUNTY A TTORNEY Daniel R. Brenden, Bar #016395 Mary C. Cronin, Bar #010816 Division of County Counsel 222 North Central Avenue, Ste. 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2206 (602) 506-8541 Eileen Dennis GilBride, Bar #009220 J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Ste. 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 263-1700 Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Medlin, Peterson and Ramsey IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Scott M. McNair, Plaintiff, vs. Maricopa County Department of Transportation; Kenneth Medlin; Terry Peterson; Jennipher Ramsey; State of Arizona Personnel Board, Defendants.

No. CIV03-2119-PHX-NVW RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND PAGE LIMIT FOR HIS REPLY

Defendants oppose Plaintiff's Motion to extend the page limit so that he can file a 21-page summary judgment reply. Even as a pro per, Plaintiff is still held to the same procedural rules as litigants represented by counsel. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1987); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1986). Those rules require him to hone his reply argument to eleven pages. This requirement is not arbitrary or difficult to comply with. Plaintiff's motion is six pages long. Defendants' response is ten pages long. Plaintiff's previously-filed

Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW

Document 68

Filed 10/07/2005

Page 1 of 3

outsized reply contains seven pages devoted to his "summary," "conclusion," and "damages." Defendants will not object to the Court giving Plaintiff a little extra time to file a reply that complies with the rules, but Plaintiff, like Defendants and all other federal court litigants, should be required to comply with the 11-page limit. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 7th day of October, 2005. J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C.

By /s/ Eileen Dennis GilBride Eileen Dennis GilBride 2901 North Central Ave., Ste. 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Co-Counsel for the County Defendants ORIGINAL electronically filed this 7th day of October, 2005, with: Clerk of the Court U.S. District Court of Arizona 401 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003 and copy delivered the same day to: Honorable Neil V. Wake United States District Court Judge 401 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85003 and copy mailed the same day to: Scott M. M cNair 5401 North Black Canyon Highway Phoenix, Arizona 85015 Plaintiff/appellant Pro Per and copies electronically delivered the same day to:

... ... 2 Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW Document 68 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 2 of 3

Andrew Thomas M ARICOPA C OUNTY A TTORNEY Daniel R. Brenden, Bar #016395 Mary C. Cronin, Bar #010816 Division of County Counsel 222 North Central Avenue, Ste. 1100 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2206 Attorneys for the County Defendants Craig Mousel Sunberg & Mousel 934 West McDowell Road Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Attorneys for Arizona State Personnel Board /s/ Eileen Dennis GilBride

3 Case 2:03-cv-02119-NVW Document 68 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 3 of 3