Strizic v. NorthWestern Corporation et al

Filing 64

ORDER denying 46 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 48 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 8/4/2017. (ELL)

Download PDF
FILED AUG 0 4 2017 Clerk, U.S. District Court District Of Montana Helena IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION DANIEL J. (DAN) STRIZIC, Plaintiff, No. CV 16-16-BU-SEH vs. ORDER NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION, d/b/a NORTHWESTERN ENERGY COMPANY, and JOHN & JANE DOES 1-7, Defendants. Defendant Northwestern Corporation d/b/a Northwestern Energy Company ("NWE") on June 27, 2017, moved for summary judgment of all claims by two separate motions 1 and briefs 2 with one statement of undisputed facts. 3 Plaintiff responded on July 18, 2017. 4 1 Doc. 46; Doc. 48. 2 Doc. 47; Doc. 49. 3 Doc. 50. 4 Doc. 55; Doc. 56. L.R. 7.l(d)(2)(A) restricts briefs to 6,500 words. L.R. 7.l(d)(2)(D) specifies that "[f]iling serial motions to avoid word limits may result in denial of all such motions." NWE' s two briefs combined contain 11, 125 words. L.R. 56.l(a)(2) requires a statement of undisputed facts to "pinpoint cite to a specific pleading, deposition, answer to interrogatory, admission or affidavit before the court to support each fact." NWE' s statement fails to appropriately pinpoint cite facts, see, e.g., Doc. 50 Nos. 96-144, 182, 184-187, 191, 192, 194-201, and 203-205. Such citations fail to disclose the precise location at which the information referenced is located in the record. Instead, each generically references a 22-page document: "Aff. Brown ,-r1, Ex. E; Def.'s Expert Witness Disclosure ill, Doc. 31." 5 L.R. 56.1 (b) also requires the party responding to a motion for summary judgment to separately file a statement of disputed facts, which must "set forth verbatim the moving party's Statement [of undisputed facts], adding only ... whether each fact" is disputed or undisputed. Plaintiff neither filed a statement of disputed facts nor responded to NWE' s statement of undisputed facts as required by L.R. 56.l(b)(l). Two statements of undisputed facts as required by L.R. 5 E.g. Doc. 50 at 29, No. 96. -2- 56.l(b)(2) were filed by Plaintiff. 6 However, those statements were attached to Plaintiffs response briefs,7 not filed separately as required by L.R. 56.1 (b ). The parties' failure or refusal to observe and comply with the filing requirements of the rules of this district cannot and will not be overlooked or excused or rewarded. See L.R. 1.1 (d). Further consideration of the motions is neither necessary nor appropriate. ORDERED: NWE's motions for summary judgment8 are DENIED. DATED this J/4y of August, 2017. ~1#~6-q SAME. HADDON United States District Judge 6 Doc. 55-1; Doc. 56-1. 7 Doc. 55; Doc. 56. 8 Doc. 46; Doc. 48. -3-

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?