Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. LHC Group Inc.

Filing 231

ORDER granting 229 Motion to Strike pages 41 through 52 of 220 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion ; denying 230 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 5/16/13. (Whitsitt, K)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
v.

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 1:11CV355-LG-JMR

LHC GROUP INC., d/b/a GULF COAST
HOMECARE

DEFENDANT

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE AND
DENYING MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT RESPONSE
BEFORE THE COURT are: 1) Defendant’s Motion [229] to Strike
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion as to Pages 41-52; and 2) Plaintiff’s Motion
[230] to Amend/Correct Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. Both Motions
address Plaintiff’s inclusion of ten additional pages of argument with its response to
Defendant’s summary judgment motion. The Court finds that Plaintiff may not
exceed the page limitations of the Local Rules by filing additional argument as an
exhibit to its response or as an appendix to its memorandum brief.
DISCUSSION
Local Rule 7(b)(5) imposes a thirty-five page limitation on memorandum
briefs filed in conjunction with motions and responses. Plaintiff EEOC sought and
obtained a exception to this rule, and was allowed to file a forty page response brief.
(See Text Only Order, April 10, 2013). The EEOC filed a forty page response brief,
but attached an additional ten single-spaced pages of argument as an “appendix.”
(Pl. Resp. 41-52, ECF No. 220). The Defendant seeks to have the “appendix”
stricken, while the EEOC seeks to disengage it from the memorandum and attach it

as an exhibit to its response.
The Court finds that the “appendix,” regardless of how it is designated, is
improper under the Local Rules. Argument related to a motion is limited to the
memorandum brief, indeed, that is the purpose of the memorandum brief. Exhibits
to the motion should consist of supporting evidence, not additional argument. (See
L.U.Civ.R. 7(b)(2)). Accordingly, pages forty-one through fifty-two of Plaintiff’s
memorandum brief in response to Defendant’s summary judgment motion will be
stricken from the record and disregarded by the Court. Plaintiff is denied
permission to amend or correct its response to attach the “appendix” to its response
rather than the memorandum.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s
Motion [229] to Strike Memorandum in Opposition to Motion as to Pages 41-52 is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion
[230] to Amend/Correct Response to Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 16th day of May 2013.
s\

Louis Guirola, Jr.

Louis Guirola, Jr.
Chief U.S. District Judge

-2-