All local rules for E.D. Pa., integrated with this judge's published requirements.
Counsel may not communicate with the judge's law clerks. Counsel should communicate with Judge Arteaga's deputy clerk.
Silent on page limits for civil motions. The local rules set no district-wide page limit for motions or supporting briefs. Each judge's individual practices govern; consult the assigned judge's chambers procedures. E.D. Pa. L.R. 7.1 ↗
Silent on page limits for opposition briefs. The local rules set no district-wide page limit. Each judge's individual practices govern. E.D. Pa. L.R. 7.1 ↗
Silent on page limits for reply briefs. The local rules set no district-wide page limit. Each judge's individual practices govern. E.D. Pa. L.R. 7.1 ↗
Memoranda must not exceed 30 pages in length (excluding table of contents and appendices), must be double spaced and must use 12-point font. Memoranda over 15 pages in length must include a table of contents and table of authorities.
Briefs accompanying motions and responses to motions are limited to thirty pages absent leave of Court.
Any reply brief is limited to the issues raised in the response, may not raise theories or issues not discussed in the original motion, and shall not exceed fifteen pages absent leave of Court.
Response to motion due within 14 days of service E.D. Pa. L.R. 7.1(c) ↗
Calendar control and other matters affecting the conduct of court business shall be governed by written policy statements on file in the Clerk's Office, which may be adopted or modified by the court in the implementation of the local rules (but not in derogation thereof), and also in the implementation of operating agreements that may be in effect between this court and certain other courts concerning conflicting engagements of counsel, recognition of busy-slips, and the like. E.D. Pa. L.R. 40.3 ↗
Proposed order required with every motion E.D. Pa. L.R. 7.1(a) ↗
Judge Arteaga will not accept stipulated proposed orders in lieu of a motion.
Except in emergency situations, documents should not be filed under seal without first obtaining leave of court. Any motion for leave to file under seal, including any motion for a proposed confidentiality/protective order that would permit a party to file any material under seal, must articulate, clearly and specifically, why the moving party's "interest in secrecy" outweighs the "presumptive right of public access." Avandia, 924 F.3d at 672. The motion—and the proposed order attached to the motion—must identify "clearly defined and serious injur[ies]" the movant will suffer if the materials are not kept under seal. Id. Judge Arteaga will not grant a motion for leave to file under seal that fails to identify the movant's interests in nondisclosure with specificity. Even when Judge Arteaga grants a motion for leave to file under seal, he will generally still expect the parties to file redacted versions of the sealed documents on the public docket unless the redactions would be so extensive as to render the document unreadable. Proposed orders attached to motions for leave to file under seal must include language requiring the parties to file redacted versions of the sealed documents to the public docket. If a movant omits this language from its proposed order, the movant must explain in its motion why redaction would render the documents unreadable. All motions for leave to file documents under seal should be filed on the public docket. If a motion contains or refers to information that the movant seeks to file under seal, the movant may redact the relevant information in the copy of the motion filed on the docket. When a movant files a motion with redacted information, the movant must provide the Court and all parties with an unredacted copy of the motion. The movant must also provide the Court and all parties with unredacted copies of all documents that the party proposes to file under seal. Parties should also otherwise conform to the Clerk's general procedures for filing documents under seal.
Oral argument at court's discretion; no automatic right E.D. Pa. L.R. 7.1(f) ↗
Parties are expected to adhere to all deadlines that the Court has implemented by scheduling order or that are otherwise established by rule or statute absent a compelling reason to justify a change. Circumstances which ordinarily do not constitute compelling reasons for an extension include settlement negotiations, scheduling difficulties in the summer, counsel's obligations in other cases, and failing to diligently conduct discovery. If a party believes a compelling reason exists for an extension or a continuance, Counsel shall request a new deadline or date in advance of the originally scheduled date via email (to Chambers_of_Magistrate_Judge_Arteaga@paed.uscourts.gov). The request shall describe the basis for the request in detail, state whether all other parties agree or disagree with the request and identify a suggested new deadline(s) or date(s). A request for an extension or continuance of the date on which a case is listed for trial or the deadline for filing dispositive motions rarely will be granted. If the Court is dissatisfied with the compelling reason provided for the requested extension or continuance, Judge Arteaga may schedule a hearing to address the request.
Discovery disputes referred to assigned magistrate judge E.D. Pa. L.R. 72.1 ↗
Judge Arteaga will not entertain a request for judicial intervention if parties or their counsel have exchanged emails or other correspondence but have not made a good faith effort to speak to each other by telephone or video conference regarding a discovery dispute. ... If a party still requires Court intervention in a discovery dispute after making good faith efforts to communicate with an opposing party, the requesting party shall email Chambers_of_Magistrate_Judge_Arteaga@paed.uscourts.gov to request a telephone conference before filing any discovery motion on the docket. The request shall: (1) describe the parties' prior efforts to resolve their dispute in detail; (2) summarize the matters in dispute; and (3) attach any information relevant to Judge Arteaga's consideration of the dispute.