Magistrate Judge Alexandar issued three orders today in preparation for next month’s trial of USA v Moultrie – all fall under what I’d call “housekeeping” and I’m going to summarize rather than link.
- Granted in part. Motion from Carothers to increase the number of pages in memorandum of law granted from 35 to 43 pages, not the 50 requested.
- Granted. Motion from USA for extension of deadline to respond to motions with deadline set on or before 12pm on the 5th of August.
- Granted. Motion from Moultrie to join motions four motions, including, the motion to dismiss count one. Use these numbers to identify the motions involved on USA v Moultrie under legal in the left side bar (124, 125, 126, and 127)
The absence of motions in opposition is noteworthy – so rarely do we see those in adversarial positions making nice and accommodating the needs of others without a hidden agenda.
Rarer still, much to my amazement, is Judge Alexander’s even tone. For example, in the order granted in part to Carothers, Judge Alexander simply took exception to what he considered a request for too many additional pages.
While the court is sympathetic to the movant’s position, an additional fifteen pages for a rebuttal memorandum is excessive.
He then split the difference between the page limit and the number requested and moved on.
When I joined Sop on SLABBED, my experience reading orders and opinions was limited. Consequently, it was a bit of a start to realize there were none of the derogatory comments I’ve come to expect – stolen documents, sham contracts, etc. – in orders and opinions from USA v Scruggs and the various Katrina insurances cases.
I’m not so naive that I don’t expect a judge to be judgmental – just naive enough to believe judgmental comments are appropriately made after both sides have presented all evidence to support their position in a case and that, even then, judgmental comments are neither insulting or demeaning.
Blog reporting has provided those of us who post legal documents, as well as those of you who read them, a very intimate look at the legal and judicial systems at work. In that regard, I offer that it is good that justice is blind – and equally important that we not be.