Discussing the art of double-spacing might seem like a conversation relegated to a high school computer literacy class; however, it became a contentious subject of an antitrust suit, Jones et al v. Bain Capital Private Equity et al, in the Western District of Tennessee. The matter became so heated that Chief Judge Lipman had to step in to put a halt to the typographic tussle.
Defendants in the case, represented by law firms Cleary, Baker Donelson, Locke Lord and Butler Snow, filed a
Motion to Require Adherence with Formatting Requirements of Local Rule 7.1. The defendants accused the plaintiffs of manipulating the double-spacing rule to create extra pages in their documents. According to them, the plaintiffs’ actions veered from the standard of 28 points of spacing in all widely-used word processing applications, which typically results in approximately 23 lines per page, allowing plaintiffs to include roughly an additional 4 lines per page.
The response from the plaintiffs’ attorneys aimed to clarify the definition of double-spacing. They argued that their 24-point line spacing equates to double-spacing, fitting within the commonly understood guidelines. The plaintiffs also added an argument backed by the historical precedent of typewriters, suggesting double-spacing corresponds with line spacing double the size of the typeface font. They reasoned that the rules should not require the use of any specific commercial product, like Microsoft Word, to avoid access to the courts being conditional on purchasing a license to specific software.
The plaintiffs highlighted a previous case, Focally LLC v. Win Elements, LLC, where sanctions were imposed on a party for arguing that double spacing should adhere to Microsoft’s default. They referenced this to further substantiate their argument and provide a potential precedent.
Ultimately, Chief Judge Lipman denied the motion without commenting on the specifics of double-spacing. She noted, “Moving forward, the Parties are encouraged to spend their valuable time focusing on the merits of this case, and certainly not figuring out how many sometimes-useless words will fit on a page.” This case serves as both a reminder and cautionary tale for lawyers: sometimes it’s best to put aside the battle of the details and focus on the bigger legal picture at hand.