Vukadinovich v. Hanover Community School Corporation et al

Filing 323

OPINION AND ORDER denying 321 MOTION for Leave to Submit Supplemental Authority filed by Brian Vukadinovich, and granting 315 MOTION to Continue Trial Date filed by Justin Biggs, Dana Griner, Mary Joan Dickson, Hanover Communi ty School Corporation, Hanover Community School Corporation Board of Trustees of the, Tony Hiatt, Julie Mueller, Pat Kocot, Carol A Kaiser. The current trial setting of June 1, 2015 and final pretrial conference setting of April 17 are VACATED. New dates for trial and the finalpretrial conference will be set when the Court issues its Opinion and Order addressing the numerous outstanding motions. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 3/26/15. cc:pltf(kjp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
BRIAN VUKADINOVICH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HANOVER COMMUNITY SCHOOL
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)

2:13-cv-00144

OPINION AND ORDER
This case is set for trial on June 1, 2015. The defendants have moved to continue
the trial because cross-motions for summary judgment are still pending before the
Court, the outcome of which could affect trial preparation. (Docket Entry 315.) Plaintiff
Brian Vukadinovich opposes a continuance. (DE 316.) As I held in granting a previous
trial continuance, under ordinary circumstances the Court would quickly issue an
Order resolving summary judgment issues, and trial would proceed as scheduled.
However, these aren’t ordinary circumstances.
This is a single-plaintiff age discrimination employment case. Nonetheless, there
aren’t just two competing motions, with the typical attendant briefing, pending before
me. Instead, all tied in with the motions for summary judgment, there are thirteen
motions pending (not counting the motion to continue). (DE 279, 283, 285, 288, 291, 294,
295, 296, 300, 302, 303, 309, 321.) There are multiple motions to file supplemental
exhibits, motions to strike, and motions to file briefs longer than this district’s local rules
ordinarily permit, as well as a motion for sanctions. Two of these were filed since I
granted the previous continuance of the trial date. On top of briefing on thirteen

motions, the parties have attached literally thousands of pages of exhibits. (See, e.g., DE
281, 284, 287, 290, 293, 302, 303, 311.)
In short, the Court has been inundated with filings. This case is, of course, one of
many active on the Court’s docket. By the parties’ own design this case requires
substantial extra time for the Court to give it the necessary attention. Given that fact, the
parties will need to bear a further delay of trial.
On a related note, the supplemental authority that Plaintiff Vukadinovich seeks
to submit via DE 321 is not controlling, and is not from this District. The time for
briefing and citing potentially persuasive authority is long past. Additional motions like
this one only add to the matters the Court must take up before this case can move to
trial. The Motion for Leave to Submit Supplemental Authority is therefore DENIED.
(DE 321.)
FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN, the defendants’ motion to continue the
trial date is GRANTED. (DE 315.) The current trial setting of June 1, 2015 and final
pretrial conference setting of April 17 are VACATED. New dates for trial and the final
pretrial conference will be set when the Court issues its Opinion and Order addressing
the numerous outstanding motions.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: March 26, 2015
/s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2