The exact same rule applies to meetings, e-mails, the playback of recorded deposition testimony . . . and blog posts (ahem).Dylan Gillis, Unsplash
I'm a big fan of page limits for briefs. Most times, when attorneys are forced to cut briefs back, the resulting brief is stronger overall than the original (assuming counsel doesn't do something crazy like dropping the whole facts section). The short, simple, easy-to-read arguments tend to be much more effective than the long and complex but easy-to-write arguments.
But not everybody agrees. Today we got an opinion from Chief Judge Connolly in Shelton v. Patton, C.A. No. 24-1338-CFC (D. Del.) where, in response to a motion to dismiss, counsel had …
If you have a few minutes to kill, go to your AI chatbot of choice and ask it to draw you a picture. Whatever you want. A raccoon perhaps.
Then slowly have it change that picture, and see how long it takes it to simply refuse. "Take away its fur," you'll say. "Make it slightly longer." "Give it 9 fingers on the front claws and 3 on the back." "Now he's wearing a tracksuit." "Now he's embarrassed about his baldness, give him hair plugs."
I feel that I have sinnedAI-Generated, displayed with permission
One of the stumbling blocks I have noticed is asking for a lawyer without glasses. No matter how clear you are, they always seem to sneak back in.
I can relate. I remember the first time I went to the DMV in Delaware. The guy behind the counter was, maaaaayyyybe 25. I had so far managed to avoid the corrective lenses note on my license and was eager to maintain this sign of my vigorous youth (I think I was 31).
I put my face in the little goggle machine. First row - easy. Second row - not so much. Row 3 - pretty bad. The guy at the counter kept saying "really? Try again." This went on for like 10 minutes. I know that reading it now, it sounds like he was trying to cut me a break. But if you were there, looking into his stupid perfect eyes, you would know that he was just genuinely baffled that I could not read that line. I think it shook him.
This is all a long-winded introduction to Judge Andrews' opinion in New Directions Tech. Consulting, LLC v. AbbottLabs. Inc., C.A. No. 25-506-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 2, 2026). The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Tennyson to resolve an early 101 motion. Judge Tennyson denied the motion in a manner reminiscent of Judge Noreika's practice, finding that—with 160 claims asserted—the parties had not given sufficient attention to the representative claim analysis to resolve the entire case, and that it was not an efficient use of the Court's time to resolve just the few claims actually discussed.
The defendant filed objections to the R&R which Judge Andrews denied, based in large part on several briefing irregularities:
The Magistrate Judge points out that Defendants supplemented their brief with a seven-page chart. The Magistrate Judge states, correctly, that Defendants "circumvent[]" the briefing page limits of the Local Rules. More significantly, the Magistrate Judge describes the briefing as "conclusory and largely unhelpful." I agree. It is Defendants' burden to show representativeness. Defendants failed
Id. (internal citations omitted).
Indeed, the Court seems to have been especially bothered bu the fact that this chart was in 8-point font, which it described as a violation of the local rules:
There are also Local Rules about font size. D.Del. LR 5.1. l(a) (12 point font for "[a]ll printed matter"). I do not think the exception for "[ e]xhibits submitted for filing," D.Del. LR 5.1.1.(b)(l), which appears to deal with pre-existing evidence, applies. Were the Magistrate Judge trying to load up on Defendants, she might have mentioned that the text of the seven additional pages is in what appears to be 8 point font.
Judge Andrews drove the point home by adding in a bit of 8-pt font for flare:
J. AndrewsJ. Andrews
Let this serve as a reminder that, unless that danged kid at the DMV is your judge, please observe the font requirements.
Whoever drafted the responding party's timeline in this case should write a book about how to draft persuasive timelines.Rita Morais, Unsplash
In D. Del. the vast majority of discovery motions are brought as discovery disputes. Basically, the parties meet-and-confer, and if they are unable to resolve the dispute, they file a joint letter or jointly call chambers (depending on the judge) to schedule a conference. In the lead up to the conference, they then file short (2- to 4-page) letters about the dispute, and the Court resolves it—possibly before the teleconference.
Do We Even Have a Dispute?
Sometimes, though, the process breaks down when the parties don't agree that they actually have a dispute. That's what …
In Pierce v. Delaware River and Bay Authority, C.A. No. 24-679-RGA (D. Del.), an employment case, the defendant filed a pretty typical 20-page motion for summary judgment that sought summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims.
In response, the plaintiff filed a motion for 10 additional pages for its answering summary judgment brief, in order to address all of his claims, including "retaliation under the First Amendment, and Defamation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law." Id., D.I. 54 at 2. The defendants opposed.
Or, at least, they did in theory. The Court granted the motion before the defendants filed their responsive brief, and the plaintiff received 50% more pages than …
Are these ancient and inviolable rules from times of old? Nope—at least, not all of them.Unknown
When I first started practicing in the District of Delaware, in the decade before last, I was told there are certain rules of citation that should always be followed in filings here. I've heard these repeated by others as well.
Most of these fall into the bucket of "we do it this way because the Court prefers it," which is—obviously—a great rule of thumb. But does the Court really prefer that the bar do these things?
Out of curiosity (and for the sake of a blog post), I took a look at some of the D. Del.-specific citation rules that I've heard and applied, and whether each of our sitting judges has been applying them lately.
My thought process here is that if a particular judge has a strong preference for one citation style or another, that will probably be reflected in their own written opinions (assuming no law clerks are going rogue and slipping in their own citation preferences).
Below are some of the rules I've heard of or applied myself, and my findings as to whether they seem to reflect current judicial preferences:
"Case numbers in D. Del. should be stated as 00-000-XYZ." True.
In PACER, and in some other districts, case numbers are commonly listed like this:
1:18-cv-01892-JDW-CJB
But in the District of Delaware, that case number would typically be stated in a brief or opinion in a shorter, cleaner form:
18-1892-JDW-CJB
As the District of New Jersey's website helpfully explains, the "1:" at the beginning of the longer-form number indicates a "division" within the District.
The District of New Jersey has three divisions, corresponding to its three courthouses. The District of Delaware, however, only has one courthouse and, to my knowledge, all D. Del. case numbers in PACER are preceded with "1:". The judges mostly omit this part of the case number.
The "-cv-" in the middle of the case number stands for "civil." You may also see "-cr-" for criminal and "-mc-" for miscellaneous cases. But, in D. Del., this is commonly omitted as well. I don't know why this is omitted, really, but I like it. It results in shorter case numbers and rarely if ever causes confusion.
Finally, the Court and practitioners usually omit the leading zeros, at least if the second number is above 99. Rather than "18-01892," they write "18-1892."
"Case numbers must always be abbreviated as 'C.A. No.'" A myth!
Some attorneys are particularly emphatic about this one, I've applied this rule myself.
"Did I forget to say why we should win the motion?"AI-Generated, displayed with permission
When you're drafting a brief, it can easy to get bogged down in all of the in-the-weeds counter-arguments and surrounding issues, and to kind of forget about the main point you need to make.
Years ago, in a patent case, I wound up needing to write three initial drafts of three summary judgment briefs in a week. Fun, right? The first two came together OK. The third one, not so much. It was a complicated motion involving many potential counter-arguments.
I remember thinking the initial draft was pretty good when I clicked send on the e-mail attaching it. How could it not be? In just …
As we mentioned recently, there was some discussion at the 2025 D. Del. Bench and Bar about the role of Delaware counsel. We may have a more detailed post about that at some point in the future. But today I wanted to offer some thoughts on one specific thing that good Delaware counsel does: avoiding allegations of dishonesty or bad faith.
Most Delaware counsel tend to be involved with filings of one type or another. Under the Local Rules, association with Delaware counsel is required, and Delaware counsel must be the registered users of CM/ECF.
In practice, that means we handle a ton of filings, typically drafted by out-of-state co-counsel. Delaware counsel's level of involvement …
Earlier this month we talked about the required structure for briefs in the District of Delaware. As to the required "argument" section, I said "We all know what this is." Maybe I was wrong.
An "Argument" Section That Wasn't
On Friday, the Court denied a motion for summary judgment for violating the local rule on briefing structure, because it's "argument" section failed to conform to the local rule on briefing structure, LR 7.1.3(c)(1)(f), and had exceeded the page limits for briefing. Roger P. Jackson, M.D. v. NuVasive, Inc., C.A. No. 21-53-RGA, D.I. 443 (D. Del. Mar. 14, 2025).
Basically, the patentee moved for summary judgment of infringement. But, rather than laying …
This is something I've been thinking we should cover for long time. Here in the District of Delaware, the local rules set forth a required structure for every brief—but out-of-town counsel often seem to miss that.
Basically, Local Rule 7.1.3(c)(1) requires that an opening or answering "brief" contain seven specific sections in a specific order:
A table of contents (TOC)
A table of citations and authorities (TOA)
A "statement of the nature and stage of the proceedings"
A summary of argument
A "concise statement of facts"
An argument
A short conclusion.
These look simple, but they trip people up sometimes. Here are some tips for each section.
Required Sections for Every Opening and Answering Brief
We all know what ellipses (". . .") mean, right? It means that something in a quote was omitted. According to Bluebook Rule 5.3:
“Omissions of a word or words is generally indicated by the insertion of an ellipsis, three periods separated by spaces and set off by a space before the first and after the last period (“♦.♦.♦.♦”), to take the place of the word or words omitted. Note that “♦” indicates a space.”
In yesterday's lengthy Mavexar opinion, however, Chief Judge Connolly pointed out that ellipses in a transcript can mean something else entirely. They are to be used to
reflect the fact [that the witness] trailed off and was silent for a …
This blog is for general informational purposes. It is not an offer to perform legal services, and should not be considered a substitute for legal advice. Nothing in this blog should be construed as forming an attorney-client relationship. If you have legal questions, please consult counsel in your jurisdiction.
