Stallings v. City of Johnston City et al
ORDER granting 68 Motion to Strike 67 Reply to Response to Motion. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 11/5/14. (lmp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CITY OF JOHNSTON CITY et al.,
HERNDON, District Judge:
Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to strike reply to response to
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 68). Defendant City of Johnson City
responded by opposing the motion to strike (Doc. 69).
On July 22, 2014,
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56
(Doc. 58). Logically, plaintiff filed a response (Doc. 65). Defendant City of
Johnson City then filed a reply to response in opposition to their motion for
summary judgment (Doc. 67). Local Rule 7.1 (c) states 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.
Here, the reply failed to state exceptional circumstances as to why a reply brief is
needed. Defendant contends the factual allegations and legal arguments in
plaintiff’s response require addressing in a reply brief because they were not
adequately discussed in defendants’ initial motion for summary judgment (Doc.
Page 1 of 2
The situation does not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting a reply, as
the factual assertions that were allegedly “misrepresented” do not allow the Court
to make a credibility determination. Assessing credibility and choosing between
conflicting accounts of events are roles for the factfinder, not for the Court on
summary judgment. See Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir.2003). The
Court could not make a determination unless lines from depositions were simply
misquoted. However, even if a simple misquotation were the case, the Court is
able to make that determination without the aid of a reply.
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. Part of this
process includes weighing the information, as presented in depositions,
admissions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits, which is part of the record.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Therefore, the Court STRIKES the reply (Doc. 67).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 5th day of November, 2014.
Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
United States District Court
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?