from feedblitz:

Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2007 WL 4074464(E.D.Tex. Nov 05, 2007) (NO. CIV.A.906CV00155-RHC)
Judge: Ron Clark
Holding: Motion to Strike Dispositive Motion for Exceeding the Page Limits GRANTED
"Blackboard has moved to strike Desire2Learn's fourth dispositive motion for exceeding the sixty page limit of the scheduling order," Judge Clark wrote.  "The page limit was adopted to encourage counsel in focusing on key issues. Allowing Desire2Learn to exceed the limit is not likely to illuminate the issues in this case, so the motion is granted."  (Ed. note: although this case involves Judge Clark's 60 page overall cap on dispositive motions contained in his scheduling order, last fall the ED Tex judges adopted that cap as a local rule, so the discussion below is not limited to Judge Clark's court - and I suspect there might be a judge or ten that would agree with his statements). 
As Judge Clark's opinion sets forth some useful; observations regarding summary judgment practice, I'll be reproducing it word for word at some length

The parties in this case have, between them, filed 48 motions, responses and replies in less than 14 months, which, including attachments and exhibits, consists of no fewer than eleven thousand pages. They seem to share the misconception, popular in some circles, that motion practice exists to require federal judges to shovel through steaming mounds of pleonastic arguments in a Herculean effort to uncover a hidden gem of logic that will ineluctably compel a favorable ruling. Nothing could be further from the truth.