Woodward v. Jim Hudson Luxury Cars, Inc.

Filing 39

ORDER denying 29 Motion to Strike, denying 34 Motion to Strike. Defendant shall submit its responses to Plaintiff's statement of disputed material facts re 27 Response in Opposition to Motion by 9/18/2019. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 9/11/2019. (pts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
5

VICKIE WOODWARD,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*

V.

CV 118-032

*

JIM HUDSON LUXURY CARS, INC.,

*
■k
■k

Defendant.

ORDER

Before

the

Plaintiff's

Court

statement

sur-reply brief

{Doc.

are

Defendant's

of material

34) .

disputed

motions

facts

to

(Doc.

strike

29)

and

Defendant argues neither filing is

permitted under the Court's Local Rules.

Beginning

with

Defendant's

motion

to

strike

Plaintiff's

statement of disputed material facts, the Court finds Defendant's

argument unpersuasive.

Neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56

nor Local Rule 56.1 precludes a party opposing summary judgment

from filing a statement of disputed material facts as long as the
statement contains evidentiary support.
LR 56.1, SDGa. )

Defendant

(See Fed. R. Civ. P.

56;

As stated in the Court's notice to Plaintiff upon

filing

its

motion

for

summary

judgment,

''If

your

opponent's Statement of Material Facts sets forth facts supported
by evidence,

the Court may assume that you admit all such facts

unless you oppose those facts with your own Statement of Material

Facts which also sets forth facts supported by evidence." (Notice,
Doc. 23.)

Moreover, Courts in the district have recognized a non-

movants' ability to file a statement of disputed material facts.
See, e.g., Jones Creek Invars, LLC v. Columbia Cty., 98 F. Supp.
3d 1279, 1283 n.l (S.D. Ga. 2015); Powell v. Scott, No. CV412-004,
2013 WL 4039385, at *3 n.4 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 7, 2013); Hosp. Res.

Personnel, Inc. v. United States, 860 F. Supp. 1557, 1559 (S.D.

Ga. 1994), aff^d in part and vacated in part, 68 F.3d 421 (11th
Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, the Court allows Plaintiff's statement

of disputed material facts.

Next, Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff's sur-reply.

response.

Plaintiff

correctly

points

out

that

the

In

Southern

District of Georgia maintains an ''unlimited reply brief policy."

(Resp. Opp'n Mot. to Strike Sur-Reply, Doc. 35.)

Linthicum v.

Mendakota Ins. Co., No. CV415-023, 2015 WL 4567106, at *4 n.4 (S.D.

Ga. July 28, 2015).

Following Plaintiff's response. Defendant,

apparently conceding the point, filed its own sur-reply. The Court
concludes that the Local Rules do not preclude the filing of sur—
replies.

Finally, the Court must note actual deficiencies under the
Local Rules not raised.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.6, "A party

intending to file a reply brief shall immediately so notify the
Clerk and shall serve and file the reply within fourteen (14)

calendar days of service of the opposing party's last brief."

Defendant filed and served its reply brief supporting its motion

for summary judgment on April 1, 2019. (Doc. 31.) Plaintiff filed
the sur-reply brief in question on April 29, 2019 (Doc. 33),
outside the fourteen-day deadline required in Local Rule 7.6.

Following Plaintiff's response, seemingly recognizing the
Court's acceptance of sur-reply briefs, Defendant filed its sur-

reply brief on May 20, 2019.^ (Doc. 36.) Because Plaintiff filed
and served its sur-reply on April 29, 2019, the Local Rules

required Defendant to file its sur-reply on or before May 13, 2019.
Therefore, both sur-replies were untimely.

Considering that no

party objected to the timeliness of the sur-replies and the Court's
unlimited reply brief policy, the Court will reluctantly consider
the sur-reply briefs.

Based

on

the

foregoing.

Defendant's

motions

to

strike

Plaintiff's statement of disputed material facts (Doc. 29) and

sur-reply brief (Doc. 34) are DENIED.

Defendant shall SUBMIT its

responses to Plaintiff's statement of disputed material facts
within SEVEN (7) DAYS of the date of this Order.

ORDER

ENTERED

at

Augusta,

Georgia^^^this

day

of

September, 2019.

J. RAl^Aj^ALL, CH^EF JUDGE

united^Jates district court
SOTLEJERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

1 Defendant also failed to file a notice of its intent to file a sur-reply as
required.

See LR 7.6, SDGa.