Federal Trade Commission v. Loma International Business Group, Inc. et al
Filing
136
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 133 Motion of plaintiff for Leave to File Excess Pages; denying 135 Motion of plaintiff for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 4/19/12. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Plaintiff
vs.
LOMA INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS GROUP INC., et al.
*
*
*
CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-11-1483
*
*
*
*
Defendants
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Court has before it Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission's
Motion For Summary Judgment [Document 135], Plaintiff Federal Trade
Commission's Motion for Leave To Exceed Page Limitations [Document
133] and the materials submitted relating thereto.
The Court finds
that neither a response nor a hearing is necessary.
By the Procedural Order [Document 115] issued February 24,1 the
Court scheduled the trial of the FTC claims against all Defendants
other than Marco Alban to commence May 7, with the parties to exchange
witness lists and exhibits on April 20.
A criminal trial2
commencing April 30 and proceeding through May 7 will require a
deferral of the start of trial to May 8.
On April 19, a day prior to the date for exchanges of witness
lists and exhibits and twelve business days prior to the trial date,
1 All date references are to the year 2012.
2 Presenting issues of more than routine complexity.
the FTC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against all Defendants.3
The motion is supported by a memorandum that exceeds by 10% the
Court's 50-page limitation together with exhibits that contain
almost 2,000 pages.
The docket reflects the due date for response
to the summary judgment motion to be May 7 although, since service
was made by ECF on April 18, the normal due date for a response would
be May 2 with a reply due May 16.
However, inasmuch as the FTC seeks
to file a memorandum that exceeds the normal page limitation and has
filed nearly 2,000 pages of exhibits, the Defendants are,
unquestionably, entitled to a reasonable extension of the May 2 due
date.
In any event, even if the Court were to require Defendants'
counsel, although necessarily preparing for a May 8 trial, to file
a response to the 56-page memorandum and 2,000 pages of exhibits by
May 2, and even if the FTC filed its reply on May 3, within 24 hours
of the Defendants' response, it is completely unreasonable to expect
the judge – while conducting a criminal trial of more than routine
complexity from April 30 through May 7 - to read and consider all
of the briefing, to conduct any necessary motion hearing and to
provide a carefully considered resolution of the motion before the
May 8 commencement of trial.
There is a pending Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant
Marco Alban to which Plaintiff has not yet responded.
3
Certainly, much of the memorandum submitted in support of the
Motion for Summary Judgment can serve a useful function as a pretrial
brief for Plaintiff.
Moreover, it is reasonable to accept the
memorandum as such while affording Defendants the opportunity, but
not the obligation, to file a response pretrial brief.
Moreover,
much of the documentary evidence submitted in support of the motion
appears – absent a bona fide genuineness objection – to be admissible
at trial4 without a need for formal foundation evidence.
In view of the filing of the summary judgment motion too late
for there to be an adequate opportunity for response and resolution
prior to the scheduled trial:
1.
Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission's Motion for
Leave To Exceed Page Limitations [Document 133] is
GRANTED.
2.
Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission's Motion For
Summary Judgment [Document 135] is DENIED without
prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to file a cross
motion for summary judgment against Defendant Marco
Alban.
3.
The Court shall consider the pertinent portions of
the Memorandum of Points and Authorities [Document
135-1] to be a pretrial memorandum in regard to the
trial of claims against all Defendants other than
Marco Alban to which the Defendants may, but need not,
file a responsive pretrial memorandum.
4 Subject, of course, to any other evidentiary objections.
4.
Defendants shall, by April 27, file a document
identifying any document presented by Plaintiff in
support of the motion as to which they raise an
objection as to genuineness and the basis for any such
objection.
SO ORDERED, on Thursday, April 19, 2012.
/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge
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?