Ford Motor Company et al v. Thermoanalytics, Inc.

Filing 76

ORDER striking #75 Response and ordering new response brief to be filed. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation, and FORD GLOBAL
TECHNOLOGIES LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company,

Case No. 14-cv-13992

Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

v.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
R. STEVEN WHALEN

THERMOANALYTICS, INC., a Michigan
corporation,
Defendant.
/

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [75] AND
ORDERING A NEW RESPONSE BRIEF TO BE FILED
On April 8, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their brief in response to Defendant’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. See Dkt. No. 75. “The text of a brief
supporting a motion or response, including footnotes and signatures, may not
exceed 25 pages.” L.R. 7.1(d)(3)(A). “In this Court, a party must set forth its
version of the facts that support or contradict a dispositive motion . . . within the
supporting brief (i.e., within the 25-page limit).” End Product Results, LLC v.
Dental USA, Inc., No. 12-11546, 2014 WL 4861647, at *4 (E.D. Mich. September
30, 2014). Plaintiffs’ brief purports to be twenty-four (24) pages, however this

-1-

page count does not include the fourteen (14) page section entitled, “Counter
Statement of Undisputed Facts.” Therefore, when counted properly, Plaintiffs’
brief is actually thirty-eight (38) pages.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Response Brief is
STRICKEN for failing to comply with Local Rule 7.1(d)(3)(A).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a new response brief that complies with
the Local Rules shall be filed by Monday, April 18, 2016.

Dated: April 12, 2016
Detroit, MI

/s/Gershwin A Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge

-2-