Hamilton v. Core-Mark International Inc

Filing 40

ORDER: The Court needs an amended and substituted Local Rule 56.1 responding statement from Hamilton. Please see the Amended Final Scheduling Order, No. 22 at 3. The Court directs Core-Mark to send Hamilton No. 27 -2 in Word or WordPerfect by 5/18/ 2018 so he can insert his responding material, rather than starting from scratch. Amended and substituted statement due from Hamilton by 6/4/2018. 37 Motion to strike is denied. 39 Motion to continue is granted for good cause. The 22 Amended Scheduling Order is suspended. After the summary judgment papers are cleaned up, the Court will rule on the motion. Thereafter, the trial, and the pre-trial deadlines, will be reset if need be. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/16/2018. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
TERRYW. HAMILTON

v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 5:16-cv-356-DPM

CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.

DEFENDANT

ORDER

1.

To help the Court discern which material facts are

undisputed, and which are genuinely disputed, the Court needs an
amended and substituted Local Rule 56.1 responding statement from
Hamilton. Please see the Amended Final Scheduling Order, NQ 22 at 3.
Specific record citations are essential. It is not enough to say a fact
is disputed; Hamilton must establish any dispute by pointing to a
specific part of the record to meet Core-Mark's statements and record
citations. Attach any cited deposition or material not already filed with
the Court. Hamilton should also steer clear of Camfield Tires, Inc. v .
Michelin Tire Corp., 719 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir. 1983) issues.

And the

responding statement is not the place for argument.
Appended to this Order is an excerpt from a responding
statement in another case illustrating the proper format, which brings
together both sides of the case in one place. To expedite Hamilton's
work, the Court directs Core-Mark to send Hamilton NQ 27-2 in Word

or WordPerfect by 18 May 2018 so he can insert his responding
material, rather than starting from scratch.
Amended and substituted statement due from Hamilton by 4
June 2018. Core-Mark may file a second reply brief within fourteen
calendar days after Hamilton files his new responding statement.
2.

Core-Mark's motion to strike, NQ 37, is denied. Hamilton's

new responding statement will moot most of the issues. The Court
declines to strike Mrs. Hamilton's affidavit. Notwithstanding her late
appearance as a witness, it is hardly surprising that a spouse would
offer testimony about mail to the family home.
3.

Core-Mark's motion to continue, NQ 39, is granted for good

cause. The Amended Scheduling Order, NQ 22, is suspended. After the
summary judgment papers are cleaned up, the Court will rule on the
motion. Thereafter, the trial, and the pre-trial deadlines, will be reset if
need be.
So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall J
/!
United States District Judge

-2-

Case 3:16-cv-00120-DPM

Document 95 Filed 07/11/17 Page 18 of 19

5 8. As part of the autopsy, toxicological testing was performed by Dr. Stephen Erickson.

(Dr. Erickson Affidavit).
RESPONSE: Undisputed.
59. Dr. Erickson found "the objective evidence in this case does not support any
intoxication on the part of Iketha D. Winchester." (Dr. Erickson Affidavit).

RESPONSE: Undisputed.
60 . Dr. Erickson's results are confirmed by Defense Expert Toxicologist, Dr. William
Sawyer. (Sawyer Report, p. 13).

RESPONSE: Undisputed.
61. Plaintiffs have not produced an expert to refute Dr. Erickson's or Dr. Sawyer's
findings. (Cole Dep., 251: 16-21; Atkinson Dep. , 121: 14-20).

RESPONSE:

Disputed.

Dr. Judy Melinek has provided rebuttal opinions with

regard to Dr. Sawyer's opinion that Ms. Winchester was "not under the influence of any
prescription at the time of her accident that may have adversely affected her driving"
based on prescribed insulin. (Report of Judy Melinek, M.D., p. 4, Exhibit #22)
62. Plaintiffs' experts will not opine to a reasonable degree of certainty that Ms.
Winchester was (1) under the influence of a foreign substance at the time of the accident; or (2)
that such influence was the cause of the accident. (Cole Dep., 251:16-2.; Atkinson Dep., 121:14-

20).

RESPONSE:

Disputed.

Dr. Judy Melinek has provided rebuttal opinions with

regard to Dr. Sawyer's opinion that Ms. Winchester was "not under the influence of any
prescription at the time of her accident that may have adversely affected her driving"
based on prescribed insulin. (Report of Judy Melinek, M.D., p. 4)

18