Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Laboy v. Ontario County

United States District Court, W.D. New York

October 28, 2014

JUAN A. LABOY, Plaintiff,
v.
ONTARIO COUNTY, NEW YORK; OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF, COUNTY OF ONTARIO; SHERIFF PHILIP C. PROVERO, individually and in his official capacity; DEPUTY REBECCA EDINGTON, individually and in her official capacity; DEPUTY NATHAN BOWERMAN, individually and in his official capacity; and DEPUTY PATRICK FITZGERALD, individually and in his official capacity., Defendants

For Juan A. Laboy, Plaintiff: David Michael Abbatoy, LEAD ATTORNEY, Rochester, NY.

For Ontario County, New York, Office of Sheriff, County of Ontario, Sheriff Philip C. Provero, individually and in his official capacity, Deputy Rebecca Edington, individually and in her official capacity, Deputy Nathan Bowerman, individually and in his official capacity, Deputy Patrick Fitzgerald, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants: Michael G. Reinhardt, LEAD ATTORNEY, Ontario County Attorney's Office, Ontario County Courthouse, Canandaigua, NY.

Page 256

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Juan A. Laboy (" Plaintiff') brought this action against Ontario County,

Page 257

the Ontario County Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Philip C. Provero, Deputy Rebecca Edington, Deputy Nathan Bowerman, and Deputy Patrick Fitzgerald (the " Defendants" ), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging malicious prosecution, excessive use of force and unlawful arrest, and deliberately indifferent policies, practices, customs, training, and supervision. (Dkt. 1). Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's motion for miscellaneous relief. (Dkt. 21). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted. Plaintiff is directed to re-file his motion for miscellaneous relief as two separate motion filings within ten business days of entry of this Decision and Order.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed his complaint on February 24, 2014. (Dkt. 1). On July 25, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 14). The Court set a briefing schedule requiring Plaintiff's response to be filed by September 2, 2014. ( Id.).

On September 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion that he labeled a " motion for miscellaneous relief." (Dkt. 16). Plaintiff's motion seeks partial summary judgment against Defendants and also responds to Defendants' motion to dismiss. ( Id.). Plaintiff submitted a memorandum of law in support of this motion that is 59 pages in length. (Dkt. 17). Plaintiff also attached Exhibits A-K to his motion papers, but Exhibits F and I were not filed until September 3, 2014, one day after the date on which Plaintiff's response was due. (Dkt. 20).

On September 2, 2014, the date Plaintiff's response was due, Plaintiff's counsel contacted the Court by telephone and advised that his memorandum of law was 59 pages long, and that he had just become aware that the deadline to request permission to exceed the 25-page limit had passed.[1] L. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(2)(C) limits any memoranda in support of or in opposition to a motion to 25 pages. On September 4, 2014, the Court received courtesy copies of Plaintiff's motion papers and an enclosure letter, relating that Plaintiff's counsel was unaware of the Court's 25-page limit for response memoranda of law until he attempted to upload his oversized memorandum onto CM/ECF. Plaintiff's counsel also requested that the Court accept the memorandum of law in its present state, and treat the letter as a request for an exception to the 25-page limit nunc pro tunc. (Dkt. 19).

On September 4, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's motion for miscellaneous relief, arguing: (1) some of the exhibits attached to Plaintiff's motion for miscellaneous relief were filed one day after the date on which his response was due; and (2) Plaintiff's memorandum of law exceeds the 25-page limit set by Local Rule 7(a)(2)(C), and Plaintiff failed to seek permission to exceed this page limit. (Dkt. 21-1 at 7, 9). Plaintiff filed a response on September 19, 2014 (Dkt. 23), and Defendants replied on September 26, 2014. (Dkt. 24).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Defendants' motion to strike as it relates to Plaintiffs filing of Exhibits F and I one day after the date on which ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.