Beesley et al v. International Paper Company et al

Filing 432

ORDER granting in part defendants' motion 420 to deny defendans' pending motion for partial summary judgment as moot and permitting defendants to file a substitue motion for summary judgment. The Court defers ruling on the remainder of the motion 420 and defers ruling on plaintiffs' motion 419 . Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment 254 is denied as moot. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 11/8/2011. (msdi)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PAT BEESLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 06-703-DRH

ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:

On September 9, 2011, the Court sua sponte entered an order (Doc.
403), directing the parties to file motions on how the Court should proceed with
regard to the motions that were pending prior to the Seventh Circuit’s mandate
regarding class certification. On October 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed their motion (Doc.
419), asking the Court to decide the motions that were filed prior to defendants’
interlocutory appeal. Specifically, plaintiffs requested that the Court rule on the
parties cross-motions for partial summary judgment (Docs. 253 & 254) and plaintiffs’
motion to strike the declaration of Daniel G. Laline, Jr. (Doc. 283), as it related to
plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs also indicated that they
Page 1 of 3

believe the Court should simply take the pending motions to exclude with the trial.

On October 11, 2011, defendants filed their motion (Doc. 420).
Defendants moved for the Court to decide plaintiffs’ amended motion for class
certification (Doc. 357) before ruling on the parties’ pending motions for summary
judgment and to deny as moot their motion for partial summary judgment and to
permit defendants to file a substitute motion for summary judgment. Defendants
also asked the Court to rule on their pending motions to exclude. Both parties filed
response to each others’ motions (Docs. 427 & 428).

Having considered the motions, the Court grants defendants’ motion to
deny as moot defendants’ pending motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 254)
and permits defendants to file a substitute summary judgment motion. The Court
defers ruling on the remainder of defendants’ motion (Doc. 420) and on plaintiffs’
motion (Doc. 419) as the Court is still considering how to best proceed with this case
but believes a newly drafted summary judgment motion would be an accommodation
to the parties and the Court with regard to addressing and resolving the issues in this
case. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 254) is denied
as moot, and the Court sets forth the following deadlines: defendants’ motion for
summary judgment is due December 21, 2011, plaintiffs’ response is due February
6, 2012, and defendants’ reply is due March 7, 2012. The motion and response shall
be no longer than forty pages in length and the reply brief shall be no longer than
Page 2 of 3

fifteen pages in length.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 8th day of November, 2011.

David R.
Herndon
2011.11.08
14:47:50 -06'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 3 of 3