Hamilton v. Core-Mark International Inc

Filing 44

ORDER directing Hamilton to repeat each fact asserted by Core-Mark before responding to each one. Hamilton must include a record citation for each material fact that he disputes. Hamilton's compliant responding Local Rule 56.1 statement due 6/29/2018. Core-Mark's time to file second reply is extended until 14 days after Hamilton files his compliant responding statement. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/13/2018. (jak) (Docket text modified to correct a typographical error)(jak)

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

PLAINTIFF

No. 5:16-cv-356-DPM

v.

CORE-MARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.

DEFENDANT

ORDER
1.

Hamilton's affidavit, NQ 43, is an improvement because it

seems to track Core-Mark's Local Rule 56.1 statement paragraph by
paragraph. But Hamilton's affidavit doesn't comply fully with the
Court's recent detailed Order, NQ 40. Hamilton must repeat each fact
asserted by Core-Mark before responding to each one. And Hamilton
must include a record citation for each material fact that he disputes.
2.

Hamilton's compliant responding Local Rule 56.1 statement

is due by 29 June 2018.
3.

Core-Mark's time to file a second reply brief is extended

until fourteen days after Hamilton files his compliant responding
statement.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall ~.
United States District Judge