Dotson et al v. Acord et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DAVID DOTSON et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. 	Civ. No. 25-509 SCY/JHR
JOSEPH ACORD, individually; and
JOES DOE 1, individually,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MOTION FOR PAGE EXTENSION
Plaintiffs represent that they “have prepared a Motion for Summary Judgment,
Declaratory Judgment, Suppression and Injunctive Relief which without exhibits, is likely to
exceed eighty pages.” Doc. 57 at 1. As such, Plaintiffs seek a page extension. Doc. 57 (Plaintiffs’
Motion to Exceed Page Limit for Motion for Summary Judgment, filed January 29, 2026).
Although the Court is amenable to a lesser page extension, Plaintiffs fail to justify the extension
they request. The Court therefore denies Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice to refiling.
This District’s Local Rules provide that “[t]he length of a motion or, if a separate brief is
filed in support of a motion, the combined length of a motion and supporting brief, must not
exceed twenty-seven (27) double-spaced pages.”1 D.N.M. LR-Civ. 7.5. “The Court has broad
discretion to grant or deny such motions [for a page extension], provided that it does not place
unreasonable limitations on the information available to the court to render an informed
decision.” Navajo Health Found.-Sage Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Burwell, 110 F. Supp. 3d 1140, 1181
(D.N.M. 2015) (cleaned up).
1 This page limit does not include exhibits, which must not exceed 50 pages. D.N.M. LR-Civ.
10.5
Case 1:25-cv-00509-SCY-JHR Document 58 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 3

2
In requesting an open-ended page extension to allow for a brief “likely to exceed eighty
pages”, Plaintiffs explain that “[t]he issues and facts relevant to Summary Judgment, Declaratory
Judgment, Suppression and Injunctive Relief are so intertwined, that filing separate motions
would be repetitive and unduly burdensome,” and that “[t]he issues are complex and require
extensive analysis of the law and facts on all these issues.” Id. ¶¶ 3-4.
Although the Court encourages consolidated motions practice, the Court will not grant
the requested page extension on the current information provided. Other than stating that the
issues are complex, Plaintiffs fail to explain why they need nearly triple the amount of pages
allowed by the Local Rules. Indeed, the Court assumes Plaintiffs’ forthcoming motion may not
be their only dispositive motion in this case as Judge Ritter has bifurcated discovery and motions
practice into two phases, separating discovery and motions practice between the investigation
(phase 1) and liability and damages (phase 2). See Doc. 34. Given this bifurcation, the very large
extension request, and the limited explanation provided by Plaintiffs, the Court has concerns that
the forthcoming motion may not be as succinct as it could be. See Jarita Mesa Livestock Grazing
Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., No. CIV 12-0069 JB/KBM, 2015 WL 13662578, at *12
(D.N.M. May 21, 2015) (“The Court encourages parties to ‘narrowly tailor’ page extensions,
taking up no more additional length than is reasonably necessary to effectuate the extension’s
purported purpose.”).
Additionally, Plaintiffs fail to request a specific page extension, instead stating that their
forthcoming motion “is likely to exceed eighty pages.” Doc. 57 ¶ 2. The Court declines to grant
such an open-ended page extension.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exceed Page Limit for
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 57) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Should
Case 1:25-cv-00509-SCY-JHR Document 58 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Plaintiffs wish to refile their motion, they should state the exact number of pages above 27 that
they are seeking to add and should include specific detail as to why such a large page extension
is needed.
______________________________________
Steven C. Yarbrough
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00509-SCY-JHR Document 58 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 3