Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2142 Filed 05/01/18 Page 1 of 2 FILED

2018 May-01 PM 03:20

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

}
IN RE: BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD } Master File No.: 2:13-CV-20000-RDP
ANTITRUST LITIGATION } This document relates to all cases.
(MDL NO.: 2406) }
}

ORDER

This case is before the court on Defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama’s

(“BCBS-AL”) Motion to Exceed Page Limit. (Doc. # 2128). Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

(Doc. # 2131). The motion, which concerns a brief filed in opposition to a request for discovery

sanctions, is properly before Judge Putnam and will not be ruled upon in this order.

Nevertheless, the rancorous briefing regarding this motion compels the court to weigh in on this

current chapter of the parties’ discovery soap opera.1

First, the court’s standing orders (and common courtesy) dictate that counsel confer with

one another before submitting the motion. By following that protocol, BCBS-AL could have

attempted to obtain consent or, at a minimum, provided the court an idea of why the motion was

opposed and a response to any objections. And, to be clear, Defendants’ obligation to confer

before filing procedural and discovery motions exists even if Plaintiffs previously failed to

comply with their meet and confer obligations. This litigation presents too many issues and

puzzles for anyone to tally up venial sins.

Second, generally a motion seeking relief such as this should be filed in advance. The

court generally frowns upon post-filing motions for leave to extend. The court is mindful of

1
When the court reads the parties’ briefs on this motion, this image comes to mind:
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Tom-Hanks-orly.gif. To be clear, the court volunteers
this impression for two reasons: (1) to make its point about faux drama in briefing; and (2) to remind the parties that
while this is no doubt serious litigation, “personalities” in these cases don’t help anyone.
 Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2142 Filed 05/01/18 Page 2 of 2

Mark Twain’s aphorism that he once wrote a long letter because he didn’t have time to write a

shorter one. It goes without saying that counsel should reflect on the value of each argument

when the draft of a brief hits the upper page limit.

Third, the parties’ puffery fails to impress the court. Strong language -- like all rhetorical

devices -- loses strength with repeated use. The court simply does not need Plaintiffs’ counsel’s

constant reminders of events that have previously transpired in this case. Nor is it helpful to hear

continual characterizations of how, as a general rule, “monopolists” litigate cases. Similarly, the

court prefers to not read excess pages as part of an opposition to a motion to file extra pages.

Fourth and finally, the court believes the parties may benefit from these thoughts. They

are offered as a gentle reminder to the parties that they should “major on the majors.” With these

comments in mind, the court leaves it to Judge Putnam to address this motion.

DONE and ORDERED this May 1, 2018.

_________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE