Taylor v. Drugstore Cowboys Inc et al

Filing 86

ORDER denying as moot 71 Motion to Strike ; denying 73 Motion for Leave to File; granting in part and denying in part 77 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Replies due by 6/8/2012); taking under advisement 80 Motion for Sanctions. The Clerk is directed to strike Document Nos. 67, 68, 69 and 70. Taylor, Jenson and Livdahl's joint status report is due by April 20, 2012. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 4/12/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

LACEY TAYLOR and RACHEL
JENSON, both individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated

v.

PLAINTIFFS

No.4:11-cv-269-DPM

DRUGSTORE COWBOYS, INC.,
Individually and d/b/a! GENTLEMEN'S
CLUB 70; CRAIG SNYDER; and CLAUDE
SKELTON

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The Court is disappointed with all this needless scuffling. The issues as
to Livdahl are moot because - based on the parties' agreement - the Court
granted him summary judgmenton 22 March 2012. Taylor and Jenson should
not have filed a lengthy (and belated) response and responding brief to a
motion they had agreed should be granted - a motion which the Court had
indeed granted the day before, and which Plaintiffs did not seek to revisit as
to Livdahl. Document Nos. 67, 68, & 69. Plaintiffs' effort to steal a march on
issues now related only to the remaining individual defendants, while
arguing against Livdahl's briefing on an already decided motion, was

misguided. And it has created a cascade of resulting papers and motions.

E.g., Document Nos. 70, 71, 72, & 73. This wasted time and effort for everyone.
Livdahl's frustration is understandable.
The Court sua sponte strikes Taylor and Jenson's response, their
responding brief, their statement of facts, and Livdahl's reply because all
these papers touch issues already decided as to Livdahl. Motion to strike,

Document No. 71, denied as moot. The Court denies Taylor and Jenson's
motion, Document No. 73, to file a sur-reply.
And now Livdahl has moved for sanctions. The Court stays all action
on this extraordinary motion, and in particular directs Taylor and Jenson not
to respond to it until so ordered. The Court requests all counsel to pause and
reconsider from the perspective of the party and lawyer on the other side of
the case. The Court directs that Mr. Sanford, Ms. Milligan, and Mr. Napper
ni.eet in person and make a good-faith effort to resolve their differences. The
Court suggests that counsel discuss the matter over lunch. Joint status report
on the meeting due by 20 April 2012.
Taylor and Jenson also move for more time to respond to Skelton's
motion for summary judgment. Skelton opposes their request to defer so they
-2­

can do some discovery. The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Taylor and Jenson may supplement their response by 8 June 2012. This is
adequate time for them to get responses to written discovery, depose a few
folks, and file a concise supplemental response to Skelton's papers. The
employer issue is not complicated.
Finally, the Court cautions Taylor and Jenson about the length and
number of their papers. Getting extra time to do some discovery before
responding to Skelton's motion for summary judgment, for example, does not
justify a five-page motion, a five-page affidavit, and a fifteen-page brief. This
is of a piece with filing fifteen pages of stuff about a motion that the Court had
already granted, Document Nos. 67, 68, & 69, and filing amended versions of
voluminous motions that only deleted Livdahl, Document Nos. 59 & 60.
Taylor and Jenson would be better served by more concise papers and fewer
of them.

* **
The Clerk is directed to strike Document Nos. 67, 68, 69, & 70. Motion to
strike, Document No. 71, denied as moot. Motion for sur-reply, Document No.
73, denied.

-3­
t

Amended motion for more time, Document No. 77, granted in part and
denied in part.

Taylor and Jenson's concise supplemental response to

Skelton's summary-judgment motion is due 8 June 2012. The previous
motion for more time, Document No. 74, is denied as moot.
Finally, all action on the motion for sanctions, Document No. 80, is
stayed. Instead, Taylor, Jenson, and Livdahl's joint status report is due by 20
I

April 2012. All other deadlines remain unchanged.
So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. /j
United States District Judge
v

I

-4­

'