JACKSON et al v. DEPAUL HEALTH SYSTEM et al

Filing 71

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 60 IS GRANTED IN PART; DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 64 IS GRANTED; DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE 65 IS GRANTED; AND, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE 68 IS GRANTED, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 04/15/2020. 04/15/2020 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(nds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
United States of America,
ex rel. Terry Jackson
Plaintiff,
v.
DePaul Health System, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 15-020

ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of April, 2020, after
considering Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
60), Defendants’ Motion in Limine (ECF No. 61), Plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition to Motion in Limine (ECF No. 62),
Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
63), Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of
Motion in Limine (ECF No. 64), Defendants’ Motion for Leave to
File Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
65), Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to File Reply for Motion
in Limine (ECF No. 66), Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to File
Reply for Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 67), Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File Sur-reply in Opposition to Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 68), and Response in Opposition to
Motion for Leave to File Sur-reply (ECF No. 69), and for the

reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 60) is
GRANTED IN PART;
2. Defendants’ Motion in Limine (ECF No. 61) is GRANTED IN PART;
3. Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of
Motion in Limine (ECF No. 64) is GRANTED;
4. Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 65) is GRANTED; and
5. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-reply in Opposition
to Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 68) is GRANTED.1

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_/s/ Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO,
J.

1

Although Defendants’ Motions to File Reply Briefs (ECF Nos. 64 & 65) were
untimely, the Court also considered Plaintiff’s untimely Sur-reply Brief (ECF
No. 68). Thus, the parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and
there is no prejudice to any party.