United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
AMENDED** ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT (DKT. NO.
81), DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY (DKT. NO.
81), AND DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
March 1, 2017, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. Dkt. No. 55. On October 2, 2017, the plaintiff
filed an amended response brief, dkt. no. 78, amended
objections to the defendants' proposed findings of fact,
dkt. no. 79, and amended proposed findings of fact, dkt. no.
80. The defendants have filed a motion to strike the
plaintiff's amended proposed findings of fact, and motion
for stay and extension of deadline for defendants'
summary judgment reply materials. Dkt. No. 81. The court
denies those motions, but gives the defendants a deadline by
which to file a reply in support of their motion for summary
of background, on May 23, 2017, the plaintiff filed his
original response to the defendants' motion for summary
judgment, dkt. no. 66, objections to defendants' proposed
findings of facts, dkt. no. 67, proposed findings of facts,
dkt. no. 68, and a declaration with attached exhibits, dkt.
no. 69, 69-1, 69-2, 69-3. On May 30, 2017, the plaintiff
filed a supplemental declaration, dkt. no. 71. On August 4,
2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's response
to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 75.
Specifically, the court granted that part of the
defendants' motion that sought to strike the
plaintiff's proposed findings of fact because he filed
200 proposed facts, in violation of Civil L.R.
56(b)(2)(B)(ii), which sets a limit of 100 proposed facts for
non-movants. Dkt. No. 75 at 5. The court ordered that the
plaintiff could file up to 100 proposed findings of fact by
September 1, 2017. Id. at 5.
requesting and receiving an extension of time, the plaintiff
filed his amended proposed findings of facts on October 2,
2017. Dkt. No. 80. Soon after, the defendants filed the
instant motion to strike. Dkt. No. 81. In support of their
motion, the defendants state that while the plaintiff
submitted seventy-five amended proposed findings of fact,
nearly all of the facts are compound and violate the
requirement in Civil L.R. 56(b)(2)(B)(ii) for “short
numbered paragraphs.” Dkt. No. 81 at 2. The defendants
state that the plaintiff used thirty-four typewritten pages
to propose seventy-five facts, for an average of 2.2 facts
per page; in contrast, the defendants proposed 103 facts in
twenty typewritten pages, for an average of 5.15 facts per
page. Id. at 2.
opposing a motion for summary judgment must file:
(ii) a statement, consisting of short numbered paragraphs, of
any additional facts that require the denial of summary
judgment, including references to the affidavits,
declarations, parts of the record, and other supporting
materials relied upon to support the facts described in that
paragraph. A non-moving party may not file more than 100
separately-numbered statements of additional facts[.]
Civil L.R. 56(b)(2)(B)(ii) (E.D. Wis.).
parties dispute whether the plaintiff's facts comply with
this rule. The Local Rule, however, does not define
“short numbered paragraph.” The court will not
analyze each of the plaintiff's facts to determine
whether it is “short.” See Lemons v. City of
Milwaukee, No. 13-C-0331, 2016 WL 3746571, at *2 (E.D.
Wis. July 8, 2016). Rather, the court will consider the
proposed facts and direct the defendants to respond to them.
See also Civil L.R. 56(b)(9) (E.D. Wis.)
(“Collateral motions, such as motions to strike, are
disfavored.”). The defendants may object to any
proposed fact, if appropriate. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c). The court will deny the defendants' motion to
defendants also ask that the court stay the summary judgment
deadline. Dkt. No. 81 at 1. Instead of staying the
defendants' deadline to file their reply, the court will
set a new deadline. The court will deny as moot the
defendants' motion to stay, and will give the defendants
thirty days to file their summary judgment reply.
court DENIES the defendants' motion to
strike plaintiffs amended proposed findings of fact. Dkt. No.
court DENIES AS MOOT the defendants'
motion to stay reply deadline. Dkt. No. 81.
court ORDERS that if the defendants wish to
file a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment,
they shall do so within thirty days of the date ...