PCHB062002227

PCHBPollution Control Hearings Board of the State of Washington

The Board should deny Appellants' motion to strike the Port of Seattle's prehearing18 brief. ACC and CASE decided to combine their respective pages so they could jointly file a 60- page brief, thereby assuming that the 30-page limit amounted to a 60-page "per side" page limit. More significantly, however, ACC and CASE made extremely liberal use of footnotes - 117 of them - to squeeze in additional text. The footnotes are in ten-point type, rather than 12-point,23 and were single- spaced. The footnotes were not reserved for citations or quotes; instead, they contain a great deal of argument that should have been placed in the main body of the brief. Had AR 002227 PORT OF SEATTLE'S RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS' BROWNREAVIS&MANNINGPLLC 421 S. CAPITOLWAY,SUITE303 MOTION TO STRIKE THE PORT'S PRE-HEARING BRIEF OLYMPIA,WASHINGTON98501 PAGE 1 (36o) 786-5057 those footnotes appeared as normal double-spaced text, Appellants' brief would have been 12-15 pages longer than it was. Although the Port believed that ACC's manipulation of the briefing guidelines was inappropriate, the Port determined that filing a motion to strike ACC's brief would divert everyone's attention, including the Board's, from the merits of the case. The parties are working very hard to prepare for trial, so that the evidence on the merits can be presented efficiently and persuasively. Focusing on formatting issues seems less than productive. The Port's counsel used "exactly 24-point" line spacing, as many attorneys do, because it allows the text to align with the numbers on the left-hand margin used in pleading…
V V