Widmar v. Sun Chemical Corporation et al

Filing 181

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 10/16/2012: For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied. The Court will reconsider this ruling only if Defendants refile a motion abiding by Local Rule 56.1. If Defendants choose to re-file, the Court grants them two weeks to do so.Mailed notice(wp, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Harry D. Leinenweber

CASE NUMBER

11 C 1818

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

10/16/2012

Widmar vs. Sun Chemical Corporation

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied. The Court will
reconsider this ruling only if Defendants refile a motion abiding by Local Rule 56.1. If Defendants choose to
re-file, the Court grants them two weeks to do so.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Local Rule 56.1 governs motions for summary judgment and its purpose is to make it relatively
simple for the court to determine whether there are bona fide issues of fact requiring a trial. To accomplish
this the rule requires the moving party to set out a statement of “material facts,” consisting of “short
numbered paragraphs,” with specific references to supporting materials, which demonstrates that here is no
genuine fact issue requiring a trial. The opposing party then is to give “a concise response” to the movant’s
statement, consisting of “a statement of short numbered paragraphs,” with specific reference to the supporting
materials, of any additional facts that it contends require denial of summary judgment.
To say that the parties have violated the rule in this case is a monumental understatement! The Local
Rule 56.1 statements of the parties in this case exceed 150 pages. The statements rather than being short
numbered paragraphs are in many cases pages long and include multiple sentences, long excerpts from
depositions, as well as long excerpts from documents. The response sometimes greatly exceed the statement
to which it is in response. Defendants opened with a document consisting of 100 “statements” requiring 45
pages. Plaintiff’s response added an additional 32 pages. In addition Plaintiff has countered with 50
“statements of additional facts” taking up 18 more pages. Defendants respond to this by adding an additional
31 pages. These documents can only be described as advertent or inadvertent attempts to obfuscate the issues
in the case. And the parties have successfully done so. Defendants’ statement no. 14 is an example of the
Rule violation on both sides. The paragraph consists of 4 sentences to which the Plaintiff responds by
admitting the first sentence and denying the second, third and fourth sentences. He then goes on to “explain”
his denial with a nine sentence explanation. Plaintiff’s additional fact no. 32 consisted of three sentences
while the response, which appears to deny each of the sentences, takes up almost 2 and a quarter pages,
explaining the denials. The net result of all of this prolixity is that the parties have taken what appears to be a
relatively simple employment discrimination case and turned, what is supposed to be a relatively simple task,
i.e., to determine the need to burden the parties, the court, a jury, and the taxpayers with a trial, into a morass
11C1818 W idmar vs. Sun Chemical Corporation

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
that turns Local Rule 56.1 on its head. To decide this motion on this record would require this Court to
isolate each sentence of each numbered paragraph and compare it with each responding sentence and then
wade through the two inch thick sets of supporting documents to see who is right and who is wrong and
whether comparison results in a triable issue. It will be infinitely easier and less time consuming for the
Court to hold a trial, and let the parties “duke” it out, and, if necessary, consider motions for directed verdict
at the appropriate time.
It is for these reasons that the motion for summary judgment is denied. The court will only reconsider
this ruling if the Defendants will refile a motion with a Rule 56.1 statement of material facts limited to the 80
asserted statements authorized by the rule and only if each statement of fact is limited to one fact or one
statement consisting of a single sentence. In the event Defendants choose to refile, the Plaintiff will be
allowed the 40 assertions authorized by the rule but only if each such assertion is likewise limited to one fact
or a single sentence. The Defendants shall have two weeks to refile if they so choose. Otherwise, the Court
will set the case for trial at which time the Court will be able to control the proceeding directly.
.

11C1818 W idmar vs. Sun Chemical Corporation

Page 2 of 2