Ingram v. MacDonald et al

Filing 108

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, With the exception of the April 9, 2012, letter responding to deft's letter motion, all of pltff's post-February submissions constitute unauthorized supplemental submissions. However, in light of pltff's pro se st atus, this Court will consider the two affidavits. The Court will also consider the "supplemental counter statement," since this more nearly satisfies the requirements of Local Civil Rule 56.1 than did the original counter statement. This C ourt will not consider "Pltff's supplemental motion to cross motion in opposition of deft's motion for summary judgment," which makes no explicit reference to the two affidavits and largely responds to arguments set forth in deft& #039;s reply papers. If deft perceives a need to submit proof in response to anything contained in the affidavits or to respond to the "supplemental counter statement," deft shall file those submissions on or before 4/23/12. Pltff shall not file any documents in response to deft's submissions, if any, or any further submissions relating to deft's motion for summary judgment without permission of the Court. (Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 4/10/2012) c/m (Galeano, Sonia)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------X:
INGRID COTTERELL-INGRAM,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

-against10-CV-3859 (SLT) (LB)
REBECCA MACDONALD, eta!.,
Defendants.

----------------------------------------------------------X
TOWNES, United States District Judge:
By order dated November 29, 2011, this Court granted defendant Just Energy's request
for permission to move for summary judgment in this action. That same order set a briefing
schedule which provided, in pertinent part, that defendant would serve its motion papers on
plaintiff by January 3, 2012; that plaintiff would serve her response by February 6, 2012; and that
defendant would reply by February 21,2012.
Neither party sought any modifications of the order, and both parties adhered to this
schedule. Defendant served its motion papers on plaintiff on January 3, 2012. On February 6,
2012, plaintiff filed her response, which consisted of a document entitled "Plaintiffs Cross
Motion in Opposition to Defendant[']s Motion for Summary Judgment," an "Affirmation" signed
by plaintiff, various exhibits, and plaintiffs "counter statement in opposition of defendants'
statement of undisputed facts." Defendant filed its reply papers on February 21,2012.
In late March 2012, however, plaintiff submitted two affidavits (Docket Entries 101-02),
one of which stated that it was submitted "in support ofplaintiffl']s cross motion in opposition of
defendant[']s motion for summary judgment." Affidavit ofShanda Walker, dated Mar. 23, 2012,
at 1. In a letter dated April 5, 2012, defendant characterized these submissions as "improper
surreply affidavits" and requested that this Court strike them sua sponte. In the alternative,
defendant requested permission to move to strike or the opportunity to respond to the papers.

On April9, 2012, plaintiff responded to defendant's letter motion, detailing her efforts to
contact the affiants prior to the February 6, 2012, deadline and noting that she was unable to
obtain the affidavits before mid-March. Plaintiff also submitted two more documents: a
"supplemental counter statement" to defendant's statement of undisputed facts pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 56.1 (Docket Entry 105), and a document entitled "Plaintiffs supplemental motion to
cross motion in opposition of defendant's motion for summary judgment" (Docket Entry 104).
With the exception of the April 9, 2012, letter responding to defendant's letter motion, all
of plaintiff's post-February submissions constitute unauthorized supplemental submissions.
However, in light of plaintiff's prose status, this Court will consider the two affidavits. The
Court will also consider the "supplemental counter statement," since this more nearly satisfies
the requirements of Local Civil Rule 56.1 than did the original counter statement. This Court
will not consider "Plaintiffs supplemental motion to cross motion in opposition of defendant's
motion for summary judgment," which makes no explicit reference to the two affidavits and
largely responds to arguments set forth in defendant's reply papers.
If defendant perceives a need to submit proof in response to anything contained in the
affidavits or to respond to the "supplemental counter statement," defendant shall file those
submissions on or before April23, 2012. Plaintiff shall not file any documents in response to
defendant's submissions, if any, or any further submissions relating to defendant's motion for
summary judgment without permission of the Court.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April I 0 , 2012
Brooklyn, New York

I

SANDRA L. TOWNES '
United States District Judge