Judge Michael Brown, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (Photo: John Disney/ALM)

A recent ruling by a federal judge stands as a cautionary tale for lawyers to keep their briefs brief—or at least within the court's page limit.

Arguing in a case involving a trucking company wreck, a defense lawyer raised several issues supporting his contention that the trucking company's insurer should not be a defendant in the case, or that its role should be the subject of a separate trial if the plaintiff wins in court.

In fact, according to a federal judge's ruling, he pleaded his case at such length it exceeded the court's 25-page limit for such filings.

Because he had not approved the additional pages, Judge Michael Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia said he would disregard anything beyond that limit, including arguments as to the truck driver's scope and duties with the company and whether Grange Indemnity Insurance should remain a party to the suit.

"This is not a mere technicality," wrote Brown in his Nov. 19 ruling, "especially considering that [the] plaintiff managed to address the entirety of the defendants' excessive briefing within the prescribed page limit."

"As a matter of fairness, the court will not consider anything beyond the required page limit," wrote Brown, essentially lopping off the last seven pages of the 32-page brief. 

He then denied the motion. 

The attorney for Grange, William "Bo" Gray of Duluth, said he was "not happy" with himself for overlooking the court rule. 

"Technically, to some extent, it short-circuited the procedural question defendants raised about what the trial should look like," said Gray via email. "But at the end of the day, we were headed to a jury trial on the merits no matter what, and any concerns about the court's substantive rulings of course will be ripe upon the entry of a final judgment.

Plaintiffs attorney Kevin Leipow said he didn't think Brown's exercise in judicial editing substantially impacted either side's case.

"I felt that the arguments that the Court chose not to consider were substantively reached by the court's analysis of the defendants' main arguments, and any analysis of the excluded arguments would strongly support denial of defendants' motion, " said Leipow, also via email.

"That being said," he added, "those of us that practice in federal courts know that federal judges are strict and often absolute about the rules and procedures that the parties are to follow, and Judge Brown used this opportunity to remind us that there are consequences to not following those rules and procedures." 

The case began with a 2014 accident on Interstate 75 in North Georgia when the plaintiff, Guy Mitchell, slowed his van after a pickup truck in front of him spilled part of the load it was carrying into the roadway.

A bobtail tractor driven by Milo Daley wasn't able to stop in time and hit Mitchell's vehicle.

Mitchell's filings said he was injured, while defense filings said neither man suffered any injury. 

Mitchell sued Daley, his employer Dixie Transport and Grange in Georgia's Northern District in 2016.

In February, Gray filed a motion and supporting brief asking the court to dismiss Grange as a co-defendant or to "conduct the tort trial against Daley and Dixie separate from its determination as a matter of law of Grange's contractual liability."

The brief raised several arguments supporting the position Georgia's direct action statutes—which allows a motor carrier's insurer to be named along with a defendant in a tort suit—does not apply in this case, because Dixie is an interstate carrier and that "the joinder of their liability insurer in this tort action is contrary to law and would be unduly prejudicial."

"In the alternative, the Defendants plead undue prejudice and move that a trial on the issue of Grange's contractual liability be separated from the trial of Defendant Daley and Defendant Dixie on their tort liability," it said. 

Mitchell's response—exactly 25 pages long—"notes that defendants' arguments regarding Daley's course and scope of employment with Dixie and argument for defendants' Motion for Separate Trials are outside of the 25 page limitation articulated" by Northern District rules and Brown's standing order, "and would be properly barred from consideration by the court."

Brown agreed, writing that he would not consider anything in the excess pages.

"This includes Defendants' arguments regarding Daley's course and scope of employment with Dixie and whether a plaintiff can join both an insurer and the driver within the same action. The Court disregards these points of argument," he wrote.

The case is scheduled to go to trial on Jan. 27.

Read more:

US Judge in Atlanta Leads Nation in Motions Pending More Than Six Months