Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
reference an attorney can avoid page
limitations applicable to motions (Paper 1,
page 27 T 28). compare DeSilva v.
DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866-67 (7th Cir.
1999) ("[a]doption by reference amounts to a
self-help increase in the length of the ***
brief. *** [IIncorporation by reference is
a pointless imposition on the court's time.
A brief must make all arguments accessible to
the judges, rather than ask them to play
archaeologist with the record.").
We recognize in this particular case
that both the preliminary motion and the
declarations are short. Hence, it can be
argued that there was no undue burden on the
opponent or the board to look collectively at
both documents. The contrary argument is
that the procedure applicable to this
interference is otherwise and that it would
have been no undue burden for Edwards to have
complied with the applicable procedure.
We follow the above-quoted principles and views set forth in
LeVeen v. Edwards (Paper No. 240) and reiterate two points A and
B for emphasis:
A.
[Spears] misperceives the role of motions and
evidence. Declarations [and affidavits] are evidence.
A motion is supposed to (1) lay out all relevant facts,
with reference to the evidence which supports the
facts, and.(2) present an argument why the facts
justify any relief requested in the motion.
31
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007