Culliver v. Volunteers of America Southeast, Inc.

Filing 53

Order re: 51 Memorandum in Opposition filed by Sandra Culliver, 50 Objection filed by Volunteers of America Southeast, Inc. VOASEs Objection is OVERRULED. To the extentthat Cullivers memorandum in opposition requests that the Court tax against VOASE unspecified costs incurred by responding to VOASEs Objection, that request is DENIED. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 7/23/2012. (cmj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SANDRA CULLIVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA
SOUTHEAST, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00257-KD-N
)
)
)
)
ORDER

In lieu of submitting a brief separate and apart from its determinations of undisputed fact
and law, Defendant Volunteers of America Southeast, Inc. (“VOASE”) chose to support its
pending motion for summary judgment (Doc. 37) by filing a single 35-page document that sets
forth VOASE’s proposed determinations of undisputed fact in enumerated paragraphs that are
followed by a dozen pages of legal argument. (Doc. 35). In response, Plaintiff Sandra Culliver
(“Culliver”) supplemented the evidentiary record (Doc. 44) and filed two documents: 1) a 12page “Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts” (Doc. 43) that tracks the
separately numbered paragraphs of VOASE’s proposed determinations of undisputed fact; and 2)
a 15-page brief (Doc. 45). Now before the Court is VOASE’s objection (Doc. 50) to Culliver’s
Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts, Culliver’s unauthorized memorandum
in opposition (Doc. 51), and VOASE’s unauthorized reply (Doc. 52).
The Court does not agree with VOASE’s arguments that Culliver’s paragraph-byparagraph response to VOASE proposed determinations “merely dumps lengthy factual
assertions in the record,” (Doc. 50 at 2), and burdens the Court and defense counsel “with the
task of searching for and addressing purported factual disputes that Culliver has not raised or
addressed in her Opposition Brief” (id. at 3). First, Culliver’s response contains no fewer than

1

four dozen citations to the record. Accordingly, the cases that VOASE cites in support of its
Objection, all of which involve a non-movant’s failure to oppose summary judgment by referring
specifically to evidence in record, are inapposite. Second, Culliver’s submissions, combined,
run afoul of neither Local Rule 7.1(b), which limits to 30 pages a brief filed in opposition to any
motion, see SD ALA LR 7.1(b), nor Local Rule 7.2(b), which calls upon a party opposing
summary judgment to “point out the disputed facts appropriately referenced to the supporting
document or documents filed in the action.” See SD ALA LR 7.2(b).
In accordance with the foregoing, VOASE’s Objection is OVERRULED. To the extent
that Culliver’s memorandum in opposition requests that the Court tax against VOASE
unspecified costs incurred by responding to VOASE’s Objection, that request is DENIED. No
rule or order called upon Culliver to respond to VOASE’s filing.
DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of July 2012.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2