Plaintiffs filed a brief in an antitrust case pending in the federal district court for the Western District of Tennessee. Local rules require that the certain of the printed lines of the papers be “double-spaced” and limits the number of pages for a brief. Defendants cried foul after reviewing Plaintiffs’ papers, arguing that they were not “double-spaced” as defined by the default setting for double-spacing in Word (28 points), and that by fiddling with the line spacing Plaintiff picked up four extra lines per page. Defendants asked for a court order requiring Plaintiffs to use 28 point spacing between lines for double-spacing and 14 point spacing for single spacing.
Plaintiffs responded that the “double-spacing” means leaving unused space between lines equal to size of the font, while pointing out that “double-spaced” is not a defined term under the local rules. Thus, double-spacing for 12-point font requires only a drop to the next line of 24-points. (Word allows you to set precise spacing between lines using the “Exactly” function.) Plaintiffs supported their position with a declaration of the author of Typography for Lawyers.
The Court denied the motion, saying “[a]s Defendants point out, the issue of what constitutes a double space has not been raised in this district. (ECF No. 509.) The Local Rules themselves do not take a position on the definition of “double spaced.” Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ use of twenty-four point spacing does not violate Local Rule 7.1 and DENIES the Motion. However, in so finding, the Court does not take a position on the correct definition of ‘double spaced.’” Order at *3. The Court added the following: ” The length of an argument is no guarantee of its success, and indeed could result in more confusion, not clarity. Moving forward, the Parties are encouraged to spend their valuable time focusing on the merits of this case, and certainly not figuring out how many sometimes-useless words will fit on a page.” Id.
Believe it or not, the trial court’s order indicates this issue has been litigated in other districts. And, in a surprise to no one who has ever researched federal district court opinions, different federal district courts have reached different conclusions on what “double-spacing” means.
Click here to access the filings on this issue, including the Order.
Does anyone know of any client who would willingly pay for this crap? Wouldn’t the natural, cost-effective response after receiving a brief with 24 point spacing (and having concern that you were at a disadvantage by using 28 point spacing) simply be to use 24 point spacing in your own papers? This result can be accomplished with a couple mouse clicks. (And, by the way, defense counsel knew how to use it – they had filed an earlier paper using 24 point spacing.
Add this one to the “motions only a big firm with a client which has too much money will file” file.