Case 6:24-cv-00197-ADA Document 81 Filed 08/30/24 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`ERIK DAVIDSON, et al.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`GARY GENSLER, in his official capacity
`as Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Ex-
`change Commission, et al.,
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 6:24-cv-00197-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEC DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION
` FOR EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMITS
`
`Plaintiffs provide no valid basis for the Court to deny the SEC’s Defendants’ request
`
`for a 55-page reply brief. They claim that the SEC Defendants’ motion “is procedurally im-
`
`proper” because it “has no certificate of conference as required by local rule CV-7(g).” Pls.’
`
`Opp’n at 1, ECF No. 78. But Rule 7(g) simply requires the movant to note “within the body of
`
`the motion that counsel for the parties have conferred in a good-faith attempt to resolve the
`
`matter by agreement and certifies the specific reason that no agreement could be made.” Lo-
`
`cal Rule CV-7(g) (emphasis added). That is exactly what Plaintiffs did in moving for their
`
`own page extension; they noted the parties’ conferral process in “the body of the[ir] motion,”
`
`Local Rule CV-7(g), and did not attach a “certificate of conference.” See Pls.’ Mot. at 2, ECF
`
`No. 43. The SEC Defendants did the same, explaining that Plaintiffs offered their consent to
`
`only a 35-page brief (later upped to 45 pages) and “at about a third the length of Plaintiffs’
`
`own submission, this offer is unworkable.” SEC Mot. at 2, ECF No. 73.
`
`Nor were “the parties still were conferring about the issue.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 1, ECF
`
`No. 78. In an email from the SEC’s counsel that Plaintiffs conveniently omit from their
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00197-ADA Document 81 Filed 08/30/24 Page 2 of 3
`
`attached exhibits, undersigned counsel clearly explained the reasons for their 55-page request
`
`and said: “we would again ask that you consent to the 55-pages we requested in exchange for
`
`us withdrawing our opposition to your motion for leave; otherwise, we will likely have to
`
`have the court resolve all the motions as contested, which seems unnecessary at this stage.”
`
`See Ex. A at 3. Plaintiffs declined and countered with only 45 pages.1 To say that the parties
`
`had not reached an “impasse” when Plaintiffs twice refused the SEC Defendants’ request is
`
`disingenuous. Pls.’ Opp’n at 2, ECF No. 78. And it is doubly disingenuous to say that the
`
`SEC Defendants are the ones “abus[ing]” motions practice when Plaintiffs moved the Court
`
`to file a 122-page brief on the day it was due. Compare Pls.’ Opp’n at 3, ECF No. 78, with
`
`Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 44.
`
`Plaintiffs’ only other contention is that their 122-page brief “made the arguments that
`
`were responsive to the SEC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.” Id. at 2. True enough. But the
`
`SEC Defendants’ point was that Plaintiffs had never before briefed many of those arguments
`
`and “Plaintiffs’ scattershot method of presenting these issues requires the SEC Defendants to
`
`carefully explain how Plaintiffs misconstrue the underlying statutory provisions and prior
`
`caselaw,” which will be “challenging” even “within the 55 pages that the SEC Defendants
`
`currently request.” SEC Mot. at 2, ECF No. 73. In fact, there is no real dispute that “sheer
`
`number and breadth of issues the SEC Defendants must address is significant.” Id. In Plain-
`
`tiffs’ own words, their 122-page brief covers “a large number of arguments, including thresh-
`
`old jurisdiction and standing arguments” and “arguments challenging all of the Complaints’
`
`claims.” See Pls.’ Mot. at 1–2, ECF No. 43.
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs note that they “reached agreement with CAT LLC that CAT LLC can file
`a brief of 45 pages.” Pls.’ Opp’n at 1, ECF No. 78. But as CAT LLC itself points out, “the
`variance in defendants’ page requests results from the different scopes of their motions to
`dismiss.” See CAT LLC Mot. at 2–3, ECF No. 79. “The SEC defendants’ motion to dismiss
`raises several issues not raised in CAT LLC’s motion, and responses to those issues span over
`50 pages of plaintiffs’ brief.” Id.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:24-cv-00197-ADA Document 81 Filed 08/30/24 Page 3 of 3
`
`The SEC Defendants respectfully request that the Court extend the default page limit
`
`for the SEC Defendants’ reply and permit them to file a brief not exceeding 55 pages.
`
`
`DATED: August 30, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BRIAN M. BOYNTON
`Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
`
`LESLEY FARBY
`Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch
`
`/s/ Stephen Ehrlich
`STEPHEN EHRLICH
`ALEXANDER V. SVERDLOV
`Attorneys
`U.S. Department of Justice
`Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
`Peter W. Rodino, Jr. Federal Building
`970 Broad Street, 7th Floor
`Newark, NJ 07102
`Phone: (202) 305-9803
`Email: stephen.ehrlich@usdoj.gov
`
`Counsel for the SEC Defendants
`
`
`3
`
`