Meilstrup v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Jay Meilstrup, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
vs. 	)
)
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 	) 	Case No. 1:25-cv-162
Standing Rock Tribal Council, 	)
and Ryan Hertle, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
On June 26, 2026, the parties participated in a telephone conference with the undersigned
as required by D.N.D. L.R. 37.1 in an effort to resolve a discovery dispute. (Doc. No. 48). At the
conclusion of the status conference, the court authorized Plaintiff to file a Motion to Compel within
10 days. The court further instructed that Defendants should file their response to Plaintiff's motion
within 7 days of service and that Plaintiff would thereafter have 5 days to reply.
On July 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel along with a 41-page supporting
memorandum and six exhibits. (Doc. Nos. 50 and 53). On July 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Leave to Exceed Page Limits. (Doc. No. 54). Therein it requested that the court accept its 41-page
supporting memorandum, averring that it could not adequately address the discovery in dispute
within the standard limit of 20 pages for nondispositive motions.
On July 6, 2026, Defendants filed an Expedited Motion to Strike. (Doc. No. 56). They assert
that Plaintiff's 41-page supporting memorandum should be stricken as it exceeds the 20-page limit
on non-dispositive motions, see D.N.D. Civ. L.R. 7.1(A)(2), was filed by Plaintiff without first
obtaining leave of court to exceed the 20-page limit, and discusses matters about which the parties
1
Case 1:25-cv-00162-DLH-CRH Document 59 Filed 07/07/26 Page 1 of 2

have yet to meet and confer.
On July 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a response in which he noted that he has filed a motion
requesting the court’s permission to exceed the 20-page limitation for non-dispositive motions and
further averred that the court hs authorized him to file a motion to compel addressing all discovery
issues given the parties' apparent impasse.
At the status conference on June 26, 2026, Defendant asserted that the parties had yet to meet
and confer about all of their objections to Plaintiff's discovery requests. The court nevertheless
authorized Plaintiff to file a motion to compel after holding a status conference with the parties.
Given all that has transpired, the court is disinclined to strike Plaintiff's supporting memorandum
due to the parties' past failures to meet and confer about all discovery issues now before the court
and ostensibly require the parties to start from scratch.
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits (Doc. No. 54) is GRANTED.
Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 56) is DENIED. Defendants shall have seven days from the
date of this order to file a response up to 41-pages in length to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of July, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
2
Case 1:25-cv-00162-DLH-CRH Document 59 Filed 07/07/26 Page 2 of 2