Queen v. Haywood Regional Medical Center et al

Filing 60

ORDER that the Plaintiffs Objection re Defendants Reply Brief 50 is OVERRULED. Plaintiff may file a surreply brief within 14 days of the entry of this Order. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 3/24/2014. (khm)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00306-MR-DLH

JULIA A. QUEEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HAYWOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL
)
CENTER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Objection to
Affidavits and Material Submitted with Defendants’ Reply Brief [Doc. 50].
In opposition to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, the
Plaintiff argued that her ERISA claims were not ripe for adjudication
because the administrative record was not before the Court. [Doc. 45 at
16].

In response to this argument, the Defendants submitted the

administrative record as an exhibit to their reply brief. [Doc. 49]. The
Defendants submitted affidavits and other materials in support of their reply
as well. [Doc. 48]. The Plaintiff now objects to the filing of these materials
as they were not timely filed with the Defendants’ original Motion for
Summary Judgment. [Doc. 50].

The Plaintiff is correct that it is generally improper for a party who has
moved for summary judgment to submit additional evidence after the nonmoving party has responded. A party moving for summary judgment must
submit a forecast of evidence that shows that there are no disputed factual
issues and that the case can be determined as a matter of law. If a moving
party submits additional evidence after the non-moving party has
responded, this is usually tantamount to an admission that the movant’s
original submission was insufficient to entitle him to relief as a matter of
law.

For these reasons, the exceptions allowing a party moving for

summary judgment to supplement his evidentiary record are narrow.
This case, however, presents one of the most obvious exceptions to
this general rule. The Plaintiff has filed an ERISA claim, and the parties
have briefed that claim. All of these arguments pertain to the decisions
made by the plan administrator as supported by or as shown in the ERISA
record. For reasons that are left unexplained, however, neither party filed
the ERISA record with this Court. Both sides needed that record, but both
sides neglected to provide it. In this instance the Defendants have filed the
ERISA record after the Plaintiff has responded to the Motion for Summary
Judgment. In doing so, however, the Defendants do not essentially admit
any flaw or weakness in their summary judgment argument.
2

Rather,

counsel is simply plugging the obvious evidentiary gap that the lawyers on
both sides have left in this Court’s record. While the Plaintiff objects to the
inclusion of the administrative record on the basis that she has not had an
opportunity to respond specifically to this new submission, the Court finds
that any prejudice caused by this late filing can be remedied by allowing the
Plaintiff to file a supplemental brief regarding the ERISA claims. For these
reasons, the Plaintiff’s objection to the filing of the ERISA record is
overruled.
As for the other materials submitted in support of the Defendants’
reply brief, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s objections are generally welltaken.

Such facts could have and should have been raised by the

Defendants’ original motion, and producing this information in a reply brief
effectively deprives the Plaintiff of an opportunity to respond to this new
evidentiary forecast.

The Court would normally disregard the untimely

presentation of additional evidence.

Because, however, the Court has

already determined that supplemental briefing is necessary to allow the
Plaintiff to address the ERISA administrative record supplied by the
Defendant, the Court will also allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to respond
to the other evidence presented by the Defendants in support of their reply
brief. See Black v. TIC Investment Corp., 900 F.2d 112, 116 (7th Cir.1990)
3

(“Where new evidence is presented in a reply to a motion for summary
judgment, the district court should not consider the new evidence without
giving the movant an opportunity to respond.”).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Objection to
Affidavits and Material Submitted with Defendants’ Reply Brief [Doc. 50] is
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff may file a surreply brief
within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order. Such brief shall not
exceed ten (10) pages in length and shall be double spaced and in at least
14 point font.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 24, 2014

4