Brown v. Chinen et al

Filing 180

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME AND DENYING HIS MOTION TO STRIKE 176 ; 177 . Signed by JUDGE ALAN C KAY. (eps )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII DAVID BROWN, Plaintiff, vs. STATE OF HAWAII, ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civ. No. 07-00556 ACK-LEK

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME AND DENYING HIS MOTION TO STRIKE On June 15, 2009, Defendant Melanie Chinen, in her individual capacity, filed a motion for summary judgment accompanied by a concise statement of facts ("Original Concise Statement"). On June 16, 2009, the Court set a hearing on the

motion for September 21, 2009. On August 18, 2009, Chinen filed an amended concise statement of facts ("Amended Concise Statement") along with a certificate of compliance with Rule 56.1(d) of this Court's Local Rules of Practice and Procedure ("Local Rules"). In the

certificate of compliance, Chinen's counsel explained that he submitted the Amended Concise Statement because he had overlooked the 1,500 word limitation set forth in Local Rule 56.1(d) in preparing the Original Concise Statement. On August 28, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Chinen's Original Concise Statement and her motion for summary

judgment. to strike.

He also filed a motion to shorten time on the motion The same day, Chinen filed an opposition to the The opposition also addresses the motion

motion to shorten time. to strike.

On August 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed a reply. Plaintiff maintains that the Original Concise Statement

does not comply with Local Rule 56.1(d) because it contains 2,094 words. He asserts that this violation of the rules greatly

prejudices him because he does not know whether to answer all of the factual assertions in the Original Concise Statement or just some of them. He therefore asks the Court to strike the Original Plaintiff further contends that, because the

Concise Statement.

Original Concise Statement is inextricably intertwined with Chinen's motion for summary judgment, the motion for summary judgement should also be stricken. In his motion to shorten time, Plaintiff asks the Court to decide his motion to strike without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d) on or before September 2, 2009, because his opposition to Chinen's motion for summary judgment is due by September 3, 2009. The Court concludes that this matter is

suitable for disposition without a hearing and on an expedited basis. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff's motion to

shorten time. The Court will now address the motion to strike. Because the Amended Concise Statement supersedes the Original 2

Concise Statement, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to strike the Original Concise Statement as moot. In addition,

Plaintiff has not established that he has been prejudiced by the filing of the Amended Concise Statement. The Amended Concise

Statement does not appear to alter the substance of the factual assertions set forth in the Original Concise Statement. Rather,

it simply pares them down to comply with Local Rule 56.1(d)'s word limitation. Furthermore, the Amended Concise Statement was

filed sixteen days before his opposition to the motion for summary judgment is due. Accordingly, the Court will deny

Plaintiff's motion to strike the motion for summary judgment. In light of the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to shorten time, but denies his motion to strike. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: Honolulu, Hawai`i, September 1, 2009.

________________________________ Alan C. Kay Sr. United States District Judge

Brown v. State of Hawai`i, Civ. No. 07-00556 ACK-LEK: Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Shorten Time and Denying His Motion to Strike

3