Smith v. Illinois Association of School Boards et al

Filing 140

ORDER striking 120 Motion to Strike and granting 132 Motion to Strike. See Order for details. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 9/19/11. (klh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CURTIS A. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF
SCHOOL BOARDS, et al.,
Defendants.

No.: 3-10-00242-DRH
ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Pending before the Court are defendants’ motion to strike portions of section
I of plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition to summary judgment (Doc. 120) and
plaintiff’s motion to strike IASB’s document 120 for noncompliance with Local Rule
7.1(d) (Doc. 132). The parties filed oppositions to the motions (Docs. 131 & 138,
respectively). Defendant moves to strike portions of plaintiff’s memorandum in
opposition claiming either mis-characterization of the facts or failure to cite to the
record. Further, plaintiff moves to strike defendants’ motion to strike arguing that
defendants did not follow Local Rule 7.1. The Court agrees with plaintiff. Based on
the following, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion to strike and strikes defendants’
motion to strike portions of section I of plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition to
summary judgment.
Defendants claim that its motion is not a reply; rather it is a “Motion to Set the
Record Straight.” The Court disagrees. A review of the pleadings pertaining to this
issue, clearly reveals that defendants’ motion to strike is a reply to the memorandum

in opposition for summary judgment. Locale Rule 7.1(c) provides in part:
Reply briefs are not favored and should be filed only in exceptional
circumstances. The party filing the reply brief shall state the
exceptional circumstances.

Further, Local Rule 7.1(d) limits reply briefs to five pages. The Local Rule was not
followed.

Lastly, the Court notes, that when ruling on motions for summary

judgment, the Court examines thoroughly the record to decide what facts are
undisputed, what facts are disputed and what disputed facts are material to the
relevant issues. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to strike IASB’s
document 120 for noncompliance with Local Rule 7.1 (Doc. 132).

The Court

STRIKES defendants’ motion to strike portions of section I of plaintiff’s
memorandum in opposition to it’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 120).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 19th day of September, 2011.
Digitally signed by David R.
Herndon
Date: 2011.09.19 12:35:49
-05'00'

Chief Judge
United States District Court