CASTELINO v. ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Filing 258

ORDER denying 256 Motion to Strike - SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/30/2018. (JRB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
JUSTIN CASTELINO,

Plaintiff,
vs.
ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
) Cause No. 2:17-cv-139-WTL-MJD
)
)
)
)
)

ENTRY DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Dkt. No. 256). The
motion relates to the fact that the Defendant sought leave to file an oversized brief in support of
its motion for summary judgment. The Defendant’s motion to file an oversized brief was timely
filed—that is, it was filed on the dispositive motion deadline—and the motion and brief in
support were attached as exhibits to the motion. The Court granted the motion and ordered the
Clerk to docket the motion as of the date of the Entry, rather than as of the date it was originally
filed by the Defendant.
The Plaintiff’s motion to strike takes issue with the manner in which the Defendant filed
its motion and proposed oversized brief:
On May 14, 2019, which was the agreed deadline for [the summary judgment]
Motion, Defendant filed Docket #246, its Motion for leave to file an over-long
Memorandum in support of summary judgment for the Defendant. Despite its
April 26 agreement [with regard to the dispositive motion deadline], Defendant
did not file its dispositive Motion separately but as an attachment to #246. . . .
The Defendant did not need leave to file its Motion, only its 83-page
Memorandum in Support. The Defendant did not comply with its Agreement, and
the Court can enforce the Agreement. . . . The Defendant has shown no cause for
an enlargement of the time agreed to and Ordered for filing its dispositive motion
and the supporting memorandum required by Local Rule 56-1(a). Since the

Defendant attached its Motion for Summary Judgment to its Motion for Leave to
file an over-long brief on May 14, 2018, there is no cause to enlarge the time to
file that. The Entry at Docket #253 dates them both a week late without cause
shown or request filed before the deadline expired.
Dkt. No. 256 at 1, 2. As best as the Court can decipher, the Plaintiff argues that because the
summary judgment motion was re-docketed by the Clerk at the Court’s direction after the
dispositive motion deadline, and the Defendant was not granted leave to file the oversized brief
until after the deadline, the motion and the brief were untimely. The Plaintiff then argues that
the Court lacked discretion to permit the late filing because the Defendant failed to demonstrate
good cause as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B).
The Plaintiff’s motion is utterly frivolous. It ignores entirely the fact that the Court
ordered the motion docketed as of the date of its entry, rather than the date it was filed, in order
to ensure that the Plaintiff had the full amount of time to respond to the motion. Indeed, the
Court specifically included “[t]he Plaintiff’s deadline for responding to the motion will run from
the date the Clerk enters the motion on the docket” in its Entry in order to make that fact clear.
In other words, the fact that the Defendant’s motion was docketed as of the later date was a
benefit to the Plaintiff. Under the Plaintiff’s logic, if the Court had granted the Defendant’s
motion on the date it was filed, the motion and brief would have been timely, but because the
Court waited for the Plaintiff to respond to the motion before ruling, the motion and brief were
late. That, of course, is nonsensical.1
In reality, the motion to strike is simply a thinly veiled motion to reconsider the Court’s
ruling granting the Defendant leave to file its oversized brief. It has wasted the Court’s time, and

1

The Plaintiff’s analogy to the rule that discovery responses must be served such that the
responses are due prior to the discovery deadline is inapt, for the simple reason that there is no
deadline by which a Court must make a ruling.
2

therefore the taxpayers’ money. Plaintiff’s counsel is admonished that the filing of any further
baseless motions will result in sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(1).
Counsel should focus on doing the work necessary to bring this case to a resolution, rather than
filing ill-conceived motions complaining of non-existent rule violations.
SO ORDERED: 5/30/18

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Copies to all counsel of record via electronic notification

3