KEENAN et al v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS et al

Filing 51

ORDER & REPORT OF CONFERENCE By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MICHAEL A. KEENAN
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNION OF MACHINISTS &
AEROSPACE WORKERS, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 2:10-cv-377-GZS
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER & REPORT OF CONFERENCE
In accordance with the Court’s prior Orders (ECF Nos. 38 & 41), the Court held a
conference of counsel on June 28, 2012. Attorney Leon Rosenblatt appeared for Plaintiffs.
Attorneys David Webbert and Raphael Rajendra appeared for Defendants.

Following the

conference, the Court hereby ORDERS that the following procedure be followed in connection
with the discussed motion practice:
On or before August 8, 2012, the parties shall file a joint stipulated record using the
“Stipulated Record” event in CM/ECF. The first page of the Stipulated Record shall consist of a
list describing each exhibit submitted. Each exhibit shall then be clearly labeled and separately
attached to this list. The Stipulated Record may include any exhibits and depositions (including
any exhibits to the depositions) that all sides agree will be referenced in the statements of
material facts. With respect to depositions, counsel shall endeavor to ensure that any deposition
excerpt is complete and includes all relevant pages. In the absence of an agreement on what
constitutes a complete deposition excerpt, counsel shall include the complete deposition in the
joint record. The inclusion of any exhibit in the Stipulated Record does not prevent any party

from later objecting to the admissibility of the document. Likewise, the submission of a joint
record does not prevent either side from submitting additional documents with their respective
statement of material facts.
The parties indicated that they also intend to file stipulations of fact.

The Court

encourages the parties to file stipulations of fact that could serve to further streamline the parties’
statements of material fact. The Court reminds the parties that they are free to indicate that any
such stipulations are admissions solely for purposes of the to-be-filed summary judgment
motions. See D. Me. Local Rule 56(g). Any stipulations will be considered by the Court in
ruling on the motion and need not be reiterated or referenced in the statements of material fact.
As discussed at the conference, the parties are free to submit any stipulations on or before
August 15, 2012.
On or before August 15, 2012, the parties shall file their motions for summary judgment,
which shall not exceed twenty (20) pages.

See Local Rule 7(e).

On or before that day,

Defendant shall also file its separate motion for sanctions, which shall not exceed ten (10) pages.
On or before September 15, 2012, the parties shall file their responses to all of the
motions filed. Summary judgment responses shall not exceed twenty (20) pages. See id. The
response to the Motion for Sanctions shall not exceed ten (10) pages.
On or before September 28, 2012, the parties shall file all reply memoranda. Each reply
shall not exceed seven (7) pages. See id.
The Court also expects the parties’ summary judgment filings will comply with all
aspects of Local Rule 56. Each side may file a statement of material fact not to exceed eighty
(80) separately numbered paragraphs. The parties are reminded that Local Rule 56(f) requires
specific record citations for all facts submitted in a statement of material facts. Absent a specific

2

citation, the Court has no duty to consider any part of the record submitted. To the extent any
party will rely on a page of the joint record for a specific citation, the Court encourages the
parties to use the “PageID #” generated by CM/ECF, particularly if the alternative pin citation
may not be readily apparent to the Court. To the extent that any party qualifies or denies a
statement of material fact based on the anticipated motion for sanctions, the denial or
qualification shall explicitly reference the pending motion.
With respect to the prior stay of Scheduling Order deadlines (ECF No. 38), it appears that
the only deadline that may remain after the anticipated motions for summary judgment is the
ready for trial deadline. This deadline shall remain stayed until the Court issues its ruling on the
motions for summary judgment. To the extent that any issues remain for trial at that time, the
Court anticipates that this case would be placed on the next available trial list following the
Court’s summary judgment decisions.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 28th day of June, 2012.

3