Warner et al v. Gross et al

Filing 401

ORDER STRIKING 392 Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as well as related filings 393 and 394 . 341 8/14/2020 Scheduling Order is VACATED. Plfs' are DIREC TED to provide complete, responsive, verified answers to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16 by 5/3/2021. Plfs' new response to 388 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment due 5/10/2021. Dfts' reply in support of motion for summary judgment due 5/24/2021. (All as fully set out in this order.) Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 4/2/2021. (llg)

Case 5:14-cv-00665-F Document 401 Filed 04/02/21 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

RICHARD GLOSSIP, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-vsRANDY CHANDLER, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. CIV-14-0665-F

ORDER
The court has preliminarily reviewed the pending motion for summary
judgment, the response and the reply.
Plaintiffs’ Violation of LCvR56.1
Plaintiffs’ response to the pending motion for summary judgment makes no
pretense of complying with the common sense requirements of LCvR56.1.
Compliance with that long-standing local rule is essential to meaningful
consideration of whether there are genuine issues of material fact, precluding
summary judgment. First, plaintiffs’ brief does not include (much less begin with)
a section which responds, by correspondingly numbered paragraphs, to the facts
listed in defendants’ “statement of facts.” See, LCvR56.1(c). Second, because the
required section of plaintiffs’ brief is missing, plaintiffs have not sufficiently
identified which of defendants’ facts plaintiffs acknowledge are not in dispute. Id.
Third, because the required section of plaintiffs’ brief is missing, plaintiffs have not
sufficiently identified which of defendants’ facts plaintiffs contend are in dispute.
Id. Fourth, because the required section of plaintiffs’ response brief is missing,
plaintiffs have not sufficiently cited, with particularity, the evidentiary material

Case 5:14-cv-00665-F Document 401 Filed 04/02/21 Page 2 of 5

plaintiffs rely on to establish a dispute regarding any of defendants’ numbered facts.
See, LCvR56.1(d).
This unexcused–and inexcusable–failure is all the more egregious where, as
here, the facts proffered as undisputed in the moving brief cover, in detail, a wide
range of discrete factual topics which are addressed on the basis of an exceptionally
voluminous record.
Subsection (e) of LCvR56.1 provides a remedy for this situation. If the
nonmovant does not comply with the procedures set out in that rule, then, for
purposes of summary judgment proceedings, the court may deem the facts set forth
in the movants’ “statement of material facts” to have been admitted. See, e.g., Scalia
v. Ghosn, 451 F.Supp.3d 1215, 1220 (W.D. Okla. 2020) (movants’ list of undisputed
material facts deemed admitted where non-movant did not comply with LCvR56.1);
Nahno-Lopez v. Houser, 2009 WL 10702853, *2 (W.D. Okla. October 13, 2009)
(statement of material facts deemed admitted due to non-movant’s failure to comply
with a prior version of LCvR56.1).
The court of appeals has upheld this approach, observing that it is not the
district court’s responsibility “to conduct a fishing expedition” to compensate for the
deficient response. Coleman v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc., 287 Fed.
Appx. 631, 635 (10th Cir. 2008) (addressing a similar local rule), unpublished. The
court of appeals stated that “[f]aced with pleadings that did not comply with either
the local practice rule or summary judgment practice in general, the district court
was correct to admit all facts asserted in Blue Cross’s summary judgment motion
that are not controverted by a readily identifiable portion of the record.” Id. (internal
quotations omitted). As noted in Coleman, this is consistent with Cross v. The Home
Depot, 390 F.3d 1283, 1290 (10th Cir. 2004), which held “it is the responding party’s
burden [at summary judgment] to ensure that the factual dispute is portrayed with
particularity, without … depending on the trial court to conduct its own search of
2

Case 5:14-cv-00665-F Document 401 Filed 04/02/21 Page 3 of 5

the record.” Coleman, 287 Fed. Appx. at 635, quoting Cross at 1290, quoting
Downes v. Beach, 587 F.2d 469, 472 (10th Cir. 1978). Accordingly, in Coleman, the
court of appeals proceeded in the same manner the district court had proceeded,
considering only whether the movant was entitled to summary judgment as a matter
of law based on the undisputed facts set forth in its motion. Coleman, 287 Fed.
Appx. at 635.
In short, litigants ignore the rules regarding summary judgment procedures at
their peril. As stated in Downes, 587 F.2d at 472: “We simply decline to place upon
the court the litigant’s burden of bringing to the court’s attention the existence of a
factual dispute. … If the party opposing the motion decides to forego submitting
proof that a relevant factual dispute exists, he does so at his peril.”
This is a complex case in which compliance with LCvR56.1 is critical to an
organized evaluation of defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Absent

plaintiffs’ compliance with LCvR56.1, the court is left with the prospect of
attempting to match up defendants’ numbered facts (as described in 124 numbered
paragraphs) with plaintiffs’ arguments and evidence, scattered throughout a
voluminous record, by picking through that record in an effort to determine which,
if any, of defendants’ numbered fact statements are either purportedly disputed by
the plaintiffs, or are actually in dispute based on the evidentiary record. This is not
the court’s burden.
In these circumstances it would be appropriate to invoke the remedy provided
in LCvR56.1(e); however, the court declines to impose on these individual plaintiffs
the consequences of the derelictions of their counsel.

Instead, the plaintiffs’

response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, doc. no. 392, is

3

Case 5:14-cv-00665-F Document 401 Filed 04/02/21 Page 4 of 5

STRICKEN, as are the related filings (doc. nos. 393 and 394). Plaintiffs1 are
DIRECTED to file a new response to the pending motion for summary judgment,
complying in all respects with LCvR56.1, not later than the date set forth below.
Defendants may file a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment in
accordance with the schedule set forth below.
Plaintiffs’ Deficient Answers to Interrogatories
In preliminarily reviewing the summary judgment record, the court noted the
plaintiffs’ responses to defendants’ interrogatories, requests for admission and
requests for production, doc. no. 388-26. On the whole, those responses are a study
in obfuscation. Since the defendants have not pressed the issue of the sufficiency of
those responses, the court has no inclination to do so other than with respect to
Interrogatory No. 15 and Interrogatory No. 16. The court’s review of the summary
judgment record persuades the court that its consideration of the issues presented on
summary judgment (or at trial) would be materially aided by answers to these two
interrogatories. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to provide complete, responsive answers
to Interrogatory No. 152 and Interrogatory No. 16 not later than the date set forth
below. The answers shall be verified under oath, as set forth in Rule 33 (b)(3). This
requirement may be satisfied by declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
Scheduling
The necessity of a new summary judgment response makes the existing
schedule unworkable. Accordingly, the deadlines, beginning with the April 9, 2021
deadline for trial briefs, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as set
out in the Scheduling Order, doc. no. 341, are VACATED. The May 3, 2021 trial
1

This does not include plaintiff Wade Lay, to whom this order does not apply, except with respect
to the new dates for the filing of trial briefs and proposed findings and conclusions (yet to be set),
and the stricken trial date.
2
Plaintiffs’ objection to Interrogatory No. 15 is foreclosed by the court’s September 15, 2020
order. See, doc. no. 349, at 10 (dismissing count VIII).

4

Case 5:14-cv-00665-F Document 401 Filed 04/02/21 Page 5 of 5

setting is accordingly STRICKEN. The court also recognizes that getting verified
answers to the two interrogatories will take time (although the court also expresses
its firm expectation that the defendants, who propounded the interrogatories and
collectively control the facility in which plaintiffs are incarcerated, will facilitate
attorney-client meetings in every reasonable way).
Accordingly, the schedule is revised as follows:
Event

Deadline

Plaintiffs to provide complete, responsive, verified answers to
Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16.3

May 3, 2021

Plaintiffs’ new summary judgment response4

May 10, 2021

Defendants’ reply in support of motion for summary judgment

May 24, 2021

Trial briefs

TBD

Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

TBD

Trial

TBD

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of April, 2021.

14-0665p094.docx

3

If, after receiving plaintiffs’ answers to interrogatories 15 and 16, the defendants desire to file a
supplemental summary judgment brief, they shall, not later than three business days after receipt
of those answers, file a motion for leave to do so. If the court grants that motion, the court will
also modify the schedule set forth above by setting new dates for plaintiffs’ new summary
judgment response and defendants’ reply.
4
The court notes, in light of the difficulties addressed in this order, that Rule 11 applies to summary
judgment briefs. See also, as to discovery responses, Rule 26(g).

5