Wood et al v. Archbold Medical Center, Inc. et al

Filing 544

ORDER denying 517 Motion to Strike. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 8/3/2010. (nbp)

Wood et al v. Archbold Medical Center, Inc. et al

Doc. 544

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA V AL D O S TA DIVISION M AR K G. WOOD, M.D., P l a i nti ff, v. AR C H B O L D MEDICAL CENTER, INC., J O H N D. ARCHBOLD MEMORIAL H O S P ITAL , INC., KEN B. BEVERLY, JAMES L. STORY JR., M.D., M AR S H AL L DUNAWAY, M.D., M E R R IL L HICKS, M.D., RAUL G. SANTOS, M.D., MEL HARTSFIELD, M.D., VICTOR M. MCMILLAN, M.D., E D W AR D HALL, M.D., N IC H O L AS QUINIF, M.D., WESLEY W. SIMMS, M.D., RUDOLF HEIN, M.D., JAMES FALCONER, M.D., BRYAN R. GRIEME, M.D., and other unknown co-conspirators, D e fe nd a nts . ________________________________ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

C i v i l Action No. 7:07-CV-109 (HL)

ORDER T hi s case is before the Court on the Hospital Defendants' Objection to and M o ti o n to Strike Plaintiff's Statement of Additional Disputed Facts [Dockets 511 and 5 1 6 ], Portions of Docket 508, and Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Response Briefs [D o c k e t 507 and Docket 510]. For the reasons discussed herein, the Motion to Strike (D o c . 517) is denied.

Dockets.Justia.com

I.

Documents 511, 516, and 508 P l a i nti ff has filed a Statement of Additional Undisputed Material Facts in

R e s p o ns e to Hospital Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 511), a S ta te m e nt of Facts in Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment D i re c te d to Plaintiff's Federal Claims (Doc. 516), and a Statement of Additional Facts i n Opposition to Defendants' Motions Directed to Dr. W o o d 's State Law Claims (Doc. 5 0 8 )1 . T he Hospital Defendants argue that Local Rule 56 does not permit the filing o f these pleadings. Plaintiffs respond that these statements were all offered in o p p o s i ti o n to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and for the Court's c o nv e ni e nc e . Plaintiff further states that Local Rule 56 does not preclude the filing o f these pleadings. W i tho ut making a specific ruling on whether or not the pleadings are allowed und e r Local Rule 56, the Court denies the Hospital Defendants' Motion to Strike as to Documents 508, 511, and 516. In a case of this magnitude in terms of filings and d o c um e nta ry evidence, and in light of the hearing scheduled for August 9, 2010, the C o urt will consider these pleadings at this time.

1

The Statement of Additional Facts in Opposition to Defendants' Motions Directed to Dr. W o o d 's State Law Claims is contained in Plaintiff's Response to Mr. Beverly's S ta te m e nt of Undisputed Material Facts (Doc. 508).
2

II.

D o c u m e n ts 507 and 510 T he Hospital Defendants also contend that Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to

D e fe nd a nts ' Motions for Summary Judgment on Dr. W o o d 's State Law Claims (Doc. 5 0 7 ) and Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Respective Motions for Summary J ud g m e nt (Doc. 510) should be stricken from the record because they exceed the p a g e limit established by Local Rule 7.4 for response briefs. On October 20, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion in which he made several re q ue s ts of the Court. He asked that he be given an additional two and a half pages, o r ten pages total, to respond to Defendants' respective Motions for Summary J ud g m e nt. He also requested that he be allowed to file two consolidated briefs, i n s t e a d of four separate briefs, in response to Defendants' Motions for Summary J ud g m e nt. (Doc. 492). In an order entered on October 21, 2009 (Doc. 494), the C o urt denied Plaintiff's request for the ten additional pages, but granted Plaintiff's re q ue s t to file two consolidated response briefs instead of four separate response b r i e fs . Document 507 is 24 pages long. Document 510 is 55 pages long.2 In re s p o ns e to the Hospital Defendants' argument that Plaintiff was limited to 20 pages fo r each of the two consolidated briefs, Plaintiff states that he took the 80 pages he w o ul d have been entitled to had he filed four separate response briefs and divided

2

T he signature pages and certificates of service attached to the documents are not c o unte d .
3

those 80 pages between the two response briefs he filed. However, in the motion w he re he requested permission to file two briefs, rather than four, Plaintiff made no request to exceed the page limit other than the request for ten additional pages that w a s subsequently denied by the Court. It was not the Court's intention in allowing Plaintiff to file two briefs that Plaintiff w a s to have 80 pages to respond to Defendants' Motions in any manner he chose, e s p e c i a l l y as Plaintiff did not make that request of the Court. Under normal c i rc um s ta nc e s , the Court would strike the responses and order Plaintiff to file new re s p o ns e s that complied with the Local Rules. The Court finds, however, that the c i rc um s ta nc e s before it are not normal. The Defendants have already filed their reply b ri e fs in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment. The Motions have been s ub m i tte d to the Court. Oral argument is scheduled for August 9. The Court does not b e l i e v e it appropriate to strike the responses at this time. Plaintiff is cautioned, ho w e v e r, that the Court will not be so lenient in the future. III. C o n c lu s io n T he Hospital Defendants' Objection to and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's S ta te m e nt of Additional Disputed Facts, Portions of Docket 508, and Plaintiff's S um m a ry Judgment Response Briefs (Doc. 517) is denied. This Motion is removed fro m the upcoming oral argument schedule.

4

SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of August, 2010. s / Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE m bh

5