Hatcher v. Cheng et al

Filing 37

ORDER granting 33 MOTION to Strike. Docs. 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ,and 32 are STRICKEN. Should defendants again seek dismissal of plaintiffs amended complaint, they are granted leave to re-file their arguments in one single brief, which shall not exceed 20 pages excluding the certificate of service, by January 3, 2014.Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 12/18/2013. (mtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DR. LAURA J. HATCHER,
Plaintiff,
v.

RITA CHENG, in her individual capacity,
and the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY,
and DR. KIMBERLY KEMPFLEONARD, in her individual capacity,
Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-407-DRH-SCW
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Pending before the Court is plaintiff Dr. Laura J. Hatcher’s motion to strike
defendants’ motions to dismiss and supporting memoranda (Doc. 33). For the
reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED and thus defendants’
motions and supporting memoranda are hereby STRICKEN (Docs. 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, and 32).
Plaintiff brings suit against three separate defendants: Rita Cheng, the
Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University, and Dr. Kimberly KempfPage 1 of 3

Leonard. Defendants, represented by the same counsel, have filed three separate
motions to dismiss the respective counts against them, in addition to three
separate briefs in support (Docs. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32). Plaintiff moves to
strike these motions and memoranda as they collectively violate the Local Rules of
this District. See SDIL-LR 7.1(d) (“No brief shall be submitted which is longer
than 20 double-spaced typewritten pages in 12 point font. . . . Requests for
additional pages are not allowed”).
Defendants’ separate briefs each note awareness of the undersigned’s
distaste for the filing of briefs which attempt to circumvent the Local Rules of this
District. However, defendants note that they have a “right” to file separate briefs
in support of their separately filed motions to dismiss plaintiff’s single amended
complaint which collectively exceed 20 pages in length.
To concisely summarize this Court’s opinion on the subject, a committee of
lawyers drafted the Local Rules of this District. The Seventh Circuit then ensured
that they do not conflict with the FEDERAL RULES

OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE. American

jurisprudence then reserves the task of interpreting these rules with judges such
as the undersigned. In this judge’s opinion, defendants’ filings violate the Local
Rules of this District. Defendants could have moved to file a single brief in excess
of 20 pages. Provided defendants demonstrated justification for so moving, the
undersigned may have even granted such a request. Instead, defendants decided
to file separate motions and briefs which collectively exceed the imposed page
Page 2 of 3

limit. Frankly, the filing of motions and briefs in this manner in a case such as
this one is inefficient, exceedingly tedious, and leads to a waste of judicial
resources. This waste is obviously compounded in this instance as defendants’
filings prompted plaintiff‘s motion to strike, to which defendants then filed a 6
page response, which then of course resulted in the necessity of this Order. In
conclusion, plaintiff’s motion to strike is GRANTED (Doc. 33). Defendants’
motions and briefs are STRICKEN (Docs. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32). Should
defendants again seek dismissal of plaintiff’s amended complaint, they are
granted leave to re-file their arguments in one single brief, which shall not exceed
20 pages excluding the certificate of service, by January 3, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 18th day of December, 2013.

David R.
Herndon
2013.12.18
16:33:45 -06'00'
Chief Judge
U. S. District Court

Page 3 of 3