Does et al v. SNYDER et al

Filing 85

ORDER SETTING New Briefing Schedule and Page Limits for Rule 52 Motions and Briefs; DENYING without prejudice 58 Motion for Summary Judgment; 79 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' Rule 52 Motion for Judgement due by 6/11/2014; Defendants' Response and Motion for Judgment due by 7/2/2014; Plaintiffs' Response and Reply due by 7/23/2014 and Defendants' Optional Reply due by 8/6/2014, . Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
_________________________________________________________________
JOHN DOES #1-5 and MARY DOE,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 2:12-cv-11194

RICHARD SNYDER, Governor of the
State of Michigan, et al.
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________
ORDER SETTING NEW BRIEFING SCHEDULE
FOR RULE 52 MOTIONS AND BRIEFS
The Court, being aware of the extensive record in this matter, and having
conferred with the parties during a status conference on April 15, 2014, about the
difficulty in ruling on cross motions for summary judgment when the factual
record is this extensive and where the Court must construe facts favorably to the
non-moving parties, and the parties having concurred that this case can likely be
resolved on stipulated facts:
IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ motions for summary judgment (Dkt. ##
58, 79) are both DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:
1. that the parties will cooperate in producing a single stipulated factual record
combining the facts set out in Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Motions for
Summary Judgment, with a single set of supporting exhibits;

2. that if the parties identify any relevant, material facts in dispute that appear
to require an evidentiary hearing by the Court, the parties shall bring those
factual disputes to the attention of the Court;
3. that this case shall be tried upon the stipulated facts and record submitted by
the parties, except to the extent that the parties or the Court identify factual
disputes that need to be resolved through the taking of testimony;
4. that the parties will each file a “Motion for Judgment” under Fed. R. Civ. P.
52, with supporting briefs;
5. that the stipulated factual record will be filed with the Court in advance of
the motions under Rule 52;
6. that any perceived evidentiary problem concerning any of the proposed facts
shall be discussed by counsel with the court in conference before any motion
is filed, and is to be settled before the statement of facts is filed;
7. that Defendants are given specific direction by the Court to file a brief
combining their Response to Plaintiffs’ Rule 52 Motion and their brief in
support of Defendants’ own Rule 52 Motion for Judgment; and
8. that the Rule 52 briefs will be filed according to the following briefing
schedule:
a. Plaintiffs’ Rule 52 “Motion for Judgment,” and a supporting brief, is
to be filed by June 11, 2014.
2

b. Defendants’ “Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment, and
Motion for Judgment, [COMBINED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT]”
along with a supporting brief, is to be filed by July 2, 2014.
c. Plaintiffs’ combined Response to Defendants’ Rule 52 Motion, and
Plaintiffs’ Reply on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment is to be filed by
July 23, 2014.
d. Defendants’ Reply Brief, which is optional, is to be filed by August 6,
2014; and
9. that the page limit for each of the above four briefs shall be 40 pages;
10. that, on the assumption that the parties will endeavor to use pinpoint
citations to record exhibits, the court shall not require the use of highlighter
to point out the pertinent portions of, e.g., transcripts and exhibits in the
Court’s chambers copy.

s/Robert H. Cleland
HONORABLE ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: May 1, 2014

3