Russ McCullough et al v. World Wrestling Entertainment Inc

Filing 314

ORDER denying without prejudice 188 Motion for Summary Judgment. See attached for memorandum of decision. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 3/24/2017. (Hoffman, S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
RUSS MCCULLOUGH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WORLD WRESTING
ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Defendant.

EVAN SINGLETON and VITO
LOGRASSO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WORLD WRESTING
ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 3:15-cv-01074 (VLB)
Lead Case

March 24, 2017

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 3:15-cv-00425 (VLB)
Consolidated Case

March 24, 2017

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 188]
Defendant World Wrestling Entertainment (“WWE”) has moved for
summary judgment on Plaintiffs Evan Singleton’s and Vito LoGrasso’s claims for
fraud by omission—the only claims that survived the Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss [Dkt. No. 43]. Along with its summary judgment motion, Defendant
submitted a 60-page Local Rule 56(a)1 statement. [Dkt. No. 1911] Plaintiffs
submitted a 125-page Local Rule 56(a)1 statement in response. [Dkt. No. 210].

1

Defendant does not appear to have filed an un-redacted version of their
statement of facts under seal, but provided the Court with a courtesy copy of this
statement. Defendant is directed to either file on the docket an unredacted
version of their original Rule 56(a) statement, or provide the Clerk with a copy for
filing under seal.
1

For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
DENIED without prejudice.
“The purpose of [a Rule 56(a) statement] is to aid the court, by directing it
to the material facts that the movant claims are undisputed and that the party
opposing the motion claims are disputed. Without such statement, the court is
left to dig through a voluminous record, searching for material issues of fact
without the aid of the parties.” Coger v. Connecticut, 309 F. Supp. 2d 274, 277 (D.
Conn. 2004), aff’d sub nom., Coger v. Connecticut Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 143 F.
App’x 372 (2d Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted); see also In re Espanol, 509 B.R.
422, 426 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2014) (“The purpose of Local Rule 56(a) is to assist the
Court in the efficient determination of motions for summary judgment and
thereby conserve limited and valuable judicial resources.”). The parties frustrate
this purpose by submitting unnecessarily voluminous Rule 56(a) statements.
This case revolves around a single question: “Did the WWE become aware
of and fail to disclose to Singleton and LoGrasso information concerning a link
between repeated head trauma and permanent neurological conditions or
specialized knowledge concerning the possibility that its wrestlers could be
exposed to a greater risk for such conditions,” [Dkt. No. 116]. Instead of
submitting “concise statements of each material fact,” L. R. Civ. P. 56(a)
(emphasis added), the parties have buried the Court in extraneous information, a
substantial portion of which is argument and not fact.
Moreover, the length of each party’s Rule 56(a) statement evidences a
transparent attempt to sidestep Chambers page limits, which bar submissions

2

longer than 46 pages. The entirety of the Defendant’s factual background
section, for example, reads:
The undisputed facts supporting WWE’s motion for summary judgment are
set forth in WWE’s Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement that is being filed
concurrently herewith and is incorporated by reference herein. Due to
length restrictions, only some facts can be discussed herein.
[Dkt. No. 188-1 at 6]. As a result, the Defendant’s brief effectively balloons from
46 to 106 pages, violating both Rule 56(a) and Chambers Practices.
Because the parties’ Rule 56(a) statements are unnecessarily long and
argumentative, and reviewing them in full would be wasteful of the Court’s scarce
resources:
1. Within 21 days of the date of this Order, Defendant is required to submit
revised briefing, including a Rule 56(a)1 statement of no more than 30
pages.
2. Within 14 days after Defendants file their revised briefing, Plaintiffs are
required to file a response, including a Rule 56(a)2 statement that (1)
responds to each of the separately numbered paragraphs in Defendant’s
Rule 56(a)1 statement with a simple admission or denial, and a citation to
the record; and (2) includes a separate section of no more than 30 pages
listing all disputed issues of material fact.
Given the parties’ familiarity with the record in this case, these deadlines provide
the parties’ adequate time to complete their revised briefing.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____/s/__________________
Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge

Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: March 24, 2017

4