Free Order on Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald C. FISH, a law corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Thomas G. WATKINS, III, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CIV 03-0067-PHX-SMM ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to File Surreply (Doc. No. 133) and 16 Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 134). Plaintiff filed a Declaration in Opposition to 17 Motion to Strike Surreply on May 19, 2006 (Doc. No. 135). 18 I. MOTION TO STRIKE 19 Defendants move this Court to strike Plaintiff's Motion to File Surreply because the 20 font used by Plaintiff in the Memorandum is smaller than Local Rule 7.1(b)(1) of the Rules 21 of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona allows. Defendants 22 emphasize that Plaintiff was previously warned by this Court in an Order filed November 26, 23 2003 that "any document filed with this Court that is not in compliance with the Local Rules 24 of United States District Court for the District of Arizona will be stricken with no leave to 25 amend" (Doc. No. 60) and once again warned in an Order issued on February 21, 2006, that 26 "further noncompliance" would not be tolerated (Doc. No. 121). In response, Plaintiff filed 27 a Declaration in Opposition to Motion to Strike Surreply. In the Declaration, Cami J. 28
Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM Document 137 Filed 11/13/2006 Page 1 of 2

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

Smurphat stated that she prepared the motion using the correct sized font and then scanned it, saved it in a pdf file, and e-mailed it to the Court. However, the plain appearance of the document, as well as a comparison of the font size used in Plaintiff's Declaration (Doc. No. 135) and the font size used in Plaintiff's Motion to File Surreply (Doc. No. 133), directly contradicts Ms. Smurphat's statement. Despite repeated warnings, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's previous Orders and the Local Rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 134) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to File Surreply (Doc. No. 133) will be stricken from the Court's docket without leave to amend. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall remove Plaintiff's Motion to File Surreply (Doc. No. 133) from the Court's docket and return all documents associated with this filing to counsel for Plaintiff. DATED this 9th day of November, 2006.

-2Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM Document 137 Filed 11/13/2006 Page 2 of 2