Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1

David B. Goldstein, SBN 003410 Holly L. Gibeaut, SBN 019786 2 HYMSON & GOLDSTEIN, P.C. 14646 N. Kierland Boulevard, Suite 255 3 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 Telephone: 480-991-9077 4 [email protected] [email protected]
5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, No. CV00-0945 PHX ROS

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PAGES 12 THROUGH 27 OF 12 vs. DEFENDANT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO 13 GERTRUDE HENNIGAN, as MOTION TO DISMISS Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas COUNTERCLAIMS 14 Hennigan,
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant/Counterclaimant.

Defendant misinterprets the meaning of Local Rule 7.2(a) and its relation to Local Rule 7.2(e). Local Rule 7.2(a) requires that "all motions, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be in writing . . . ." Local Rule 7.2(e) limits the motion and response to 17 pages and the reply to 11 pages. Local Rule 7.2(e) applies to all motions made in writing. Merely because Taser made an oral motion during the trial to dismiss Defendant's claims does not serve to waive the requirements of Local Rule 7.2(e). Taking Defendant's interpretation of Local Rule 7.2 to the extreme would allow any party to make, for example, an oral motion for summary judgment during a hearing just to avoid the page limits set forth in Local Rule 7.2(e). This defies logic and would hoist upon the Court motions containing unlimited pages thereby thwarting the very purpose of Local Rule 7.2(e).

Case 2:00-cv-00945-ROS 302374v1

508021:1/10321-00

Document 179

Filed 12/08/2005

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court specifically requested written motions on Taser's request for dismissal of Defendant's claims. Defendant was required by the Court to set forth its legal

arguments and evidentiary support for its opposition to Taser's motion to dismiss. This is exactly the type of written motion contemplated by Local Rule 7.2. Local Rule 7.2(e) and its page limits therefore apply to the motion and response filed by Defendant. Taser did not object to the length of Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims, dated October 10, 2005 ("Defendant's

Memorandum"), because it was only two (2) pages over the 17-page limit. Pages 20 through 28 of Defendant's motion contain two exhibits and the certificate of filing; thus, Taser did not consider these pages attributable to the 17-page limit. However, because Defendant construes inconsistency on the part of Taser by not objecting to the extra pages, Taser moves to strike pages 18 through 28 of Defendant's Memorandum, as well as pages 12 through 27 of Defendant's Reply Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims ("Reply"). Taser therefore requests that the Court strike all pages in Defendant's Memorandum and Reply that exceed the limits set forth in Local Rule 7.2(e). Defendant never sought leave to exceed the page limits and cannot now be allowed to do so to get an extra bite at the apple. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 8th day of December 2005. HYMSON & GOLDSTEIN, P.C. /s/David B. Goldstein David B. Goldstein Holly L. Gibeaut Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

2
508021:1/10321-00 Case 2:00-cv-00945-ROS 302374v1

Document 179

Filed 12/08/2005

Page 2 of 3

1 2

CERTIFICATE OF FILING

I hereby certify that on December 8, 2005, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's office via the CM/ECF filing system for filing and transmittal of 3 a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:
4 5

Leslie Trager
C/O ROSEMARY J. SCHOCKMAN

SHOCKMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C. 6 8170 North 86th Place, #102 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 7 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimants Rosemary J. Shockman SHOCKMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C. 9 8170 North 86th Place, #102 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 10 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimants
8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
508021:1/10321-00 Case 2:00-cv-00945-ROS 302374v1

/s/Barrie Peagler

3

Document 179

Filed 12/08/2005

Page 3 of 3