Bio Med Technologies Corporation et al v. ELA Medical, Inc.
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 91 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to Sorin's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 88 ) is STRICKEN. Plaintiff will have until Friday, 4/10/2015 to amend its Response as specified in this Order. Defendant will not be permitted any further time to file its Reply. By Judge William J. Martinez on 4/8/2015. (alowe)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 14-cv-0154-WJM-CBS
BIO MED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
SORIN CRM USA, INC., f/k/a ELA MEDICAL, INC.,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S EXPEDITED MOTION TO STRIKE
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Expedited Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s Response to Sorin’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”). (ECF No. 91.)
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (“Response”) (ECF No. 88) fails to conform to the Court’s Practice Standards
in several ways. (Id.) Plaintiff responded to the Motion on April 6, 2015. (ECF No. 92.)
After reviewing the parties’ briefs and Plaintiff’s Response, the Court finds that
Plaintiff’s failure to separately number the paragraphs in its Statement of Undisputed
Facts warrants striking the Response with leave to amend. (ECF No. 88 at 24-31.)
This Court’s Practice Standards state:
If the party opposing the motion for summary judgment . . . believes there
are additional disputed questions which have not been adequately
addressed by the movant, the party shall, in a separate section of the
party’s brief styled “Statement of Additional Disputed Facts,” set forth in
simple declarative sentences, separately numbered and paragraphed,
each additional material disputed fact which undercuts movant’s claim that
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Each separately
numbered and paragraphed fact shall be accompanied by specific
reference to admissible evidence in the record which establishes the fact
or demonstrates that it is disputed.
WJM Revised Practice Standards III(E)(6) (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s
Response is therefore stricken, and Plaintiff will be given until Friday, April 10,
2015 to amend its Response with properly numbered paragraphs.1 The Court
declines to address Defendant’s remaining arguments (which all appear to
address Plaintiff’s allegedly deficient briefing), or Plaintiff’s argument that
Defense counsel failed to confer in good faith under Local Rule 7.1(a). (ECF
Nos. 91 & 92.)
Compliance with the Local Rules and the Court’s practice standards
would, in a perfect world, eliminate the need for motions such as those here.
Moreover, the Court does not have the time, nor the resources, nor the
inclination to address the variety of disputes between counsel that arise
throughout the course of civil ligation. The Court also cannot permit motions
about motions, and “allegedly bad briefing does not permit opposing bad
briefing.” Mondo Polymers Tech., Inc. v. Monroeville Indus. Moldings, Inc., 2009
WL 3698432, *5 n.3 (S.D. Ohio November 3, 2009). Civil litigation is painfully
The Court declines to strike Plaintiff's Response due to its alleged noncompliance
with the Practice Standards’ page restrictions. Parties are allowed 20 pages for any
substantive legal argument in a responsive brief, and 20 pages for any additional statement of
facts. WJM Revised Practice Standards III(E)(3), (7). While Plaintiff did devote 31 pages of its
Response to a statement of facts—which exceeds the allotted page limit—the Practice
Standards state that “[a]ny recitation of material facts set forth outside of these statements of
facts sections shall count against the page limits on legal arguments set forth above.” WJM
Revised Practice Standards III(E)(7). Plaintiff’s Response is 40 pages long exclusive of
counsel’s signature block and certificate of service and therefore complies with the Practice
Standards. WJM Revised Practice Standards III(E)(3), (7).
protracted as it is, and the parties are advised that the Court expects full
compliance with its Practice Standards and the Local Rules in all f uture filings.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to Sorin's Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 91) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 88) is STRICKEN. Plaintiff will have until Friday, April 10, 2015 to
amend its Response as specified in this Order. Defendant will not be
permitted any further time to file its Reply.
Dated this 8th day of April, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?