Bioscience Advisors, Inc. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-00866
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bioscience Advisors v. SEC, Judge Gilliam allowed defendants to file a summary-judgment memorandum of up to 35 pages.
The defendants were allowed to file a memorandum supporting their summary-judgment motion of up to 35 pages rather than the usual 25-page limit.
What happened
Bioscience Advisors, Inc. sued the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and another government agency under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Freedom of Information Act. The complaint raised four claims involving records schedules and the SEC’s responses to hundreds of information requests.
The defendants said the case involved enough separate issues that they needed more pages to explain their request for summary judgment. The parties agreed that the defendants could file a memorandum of up to 35 pages, instead of the 25-page limit in the court’s local rules.
Judge Haywood Gilliam entered the stipulated order allowing the defendants to file the longer memorandum. The order addressed only the page limit and did not decide the underlying claims or the summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Bioscience Advisors, Inc. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission · No. 4:21-cv-00866
- Haywood Gilliam
- May 24, 2022
Background
Bioscience Advisors, Inc.’s Second Amended Complaint asserted four claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against two government agencies. According to the stipulation, one claim challenged both the National Archives and Records Administration’s approval of a records schedule and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s adoption of that schedule. Another claim challenged the SEC’s responses to hundreds of FOIA requests.
Request
The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was due on May 24, 2022. The court’s Local Rule 7-2(b) limited a motion and accompanying memorandum to 25 pages unless the court granted permission to exceed that limit. The parties jointly requested permission for the defendants to file a memorandum of up to 35 pages, explaining that the complaint raised numerous issues and that additional briefing would assist the court.
Ruling
Judge Haywood Gilliam entered the stipulated order allowing the defendants to file a summary-judgment memorandum of up to 35 pages. This order concerned only the length of the defendants’ filing; it did not resolve the parties’ claims or decide the summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.