United States District Court, D. Arizona
JAMES A. SOTO, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Macdonald. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Macdonald recommends denying Defendant's motions to suppress (Docs. 50, 58). As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation correctly resolved the motions, Defendant's objections are denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Macdonald's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 108) is accepted and adopted.
(2) Defendant's motions to suppress (Docs. 50, 58) are denied.
Lastly, the Court notes that in a previous Order the Court stated:
Pending before the Court is Defendant's "motion to allow contemporaneously-filed over-sized objections to Report and Recommendations [R & R]." See Doc. 122. The motion states in part that "[w]hile not sure if its necessary, since undersigned counsel is not aware of any page limitations imposed upon objections to Reports and Recommendations, " Defendant requests to file objections totaling nearly 60 pages... The Local Rules, however, mandate that parties' objections be focused and concise inasmuch as "an objection to a [R & R] issued by a Magistrate Judge shall not exceed ten (10) pages." See LRCrim 12.(c); LRCiv 7.2(e)(3).
See Doc. 123. The Court denied the motion, but allowed objections to be filed that did not exceed 30 pages (i.e., triple the amount permitted in the Local Rules). While Defendant subsequently filed objections totaling 30 pages, the font size was in 11 point; the Local Rules require that "font size [be] no smaller than 13 point..." See LRCrim 12.1(a); LRCiv 7.1(b)(1). As previously stated, the page limits in the Local Rules encourage the parties to be focused and concise in their arguments; decreasing the font size subverts the purpose of the page ...