Hinson v. Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER re 21 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 17 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 20 Response in Opposition to Motion, 16 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 9/9/2015. (eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:14-cv-00565-FDW-DCK
JOSEPH HINSON
Plaintiff,
vs.
SOUTHEASTERN
INC.,
Defendant.

FREIGHT

)
)
)
)
)
)
LINES, )
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte following the filing of Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 16, 17) and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (Doc. Nos. 20,
21). The Court notes that Defendant’s Memorandum (Doc. No. 17) failed to comply with this
Court’s rules governing word count limits in civil cases before the Honorable Judge Whitney,
Misc. No. 3:07-MC-47 (Doc. No. 2) (hereinafter, “the Initial Scheduling Order”). The Initial
Scheduling Order was entered into the record by the Clerk of Court and served on both parties on
October 14, 2014.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. No. 21) failed to include a certificate
by Plaintiff’s attorney stating that the submission complies with this Court’s word count limitation
rules, as required by Paragraph (3)(b)(iv) of the Initial Scheduling Order.
Failure to comply with this Court’s rules governing word count limits in civil cases and
exclusion of a certificate of compliance with these rules would ordinarily result in the nonconforming filing(s) being summarily stricken from the record. However, the Court directs as a
remedy that the word limit on Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition (Doc.

No. 21) be reduced by the same amount of words by which Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. No. 17) exceeded the established word limit. Accordingly, Defendant is directed
to include with its Reply a certification of both the number of words by which the Motion for
Summary Judgment exceeded the applicable word count limitation and the total word count for its
Reply brief. Both parties are instructed to closely review the Court’s rules in order to ensure future
compliance with these rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: September 9, 2015