OneBeacon Insurance Company v. T. Wade Welch & Associates et al

Filing 265

ORDER DENYING 245 MOTION to Strike 239 Joint MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to the First Cause of Action for Rescission in the Amended Complaint, 236 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Estoppel and Unclean Hands, 238 Joint MOTION.(Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ONE BEACON INSURANCE COMPANY ,
Plaintiff,
v.
T. WADE WELCH & ASSOCIATES, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION H-11-3061

O RDER
Pending before the court is plaintiff OneBeacon Insurance Company’s (“OneBeacon”)
motion to strike the motions for summary judgment filed by defendants T. Wade Welch and T. Wade
Welch & Associates (the “Welch Litigants”) and intervenor DISH Network Corporation (“DISH”).
Dkt. 245. Having considered the motion, response, and applicable law, the court is of the opinion
that the motion should be DENIED.
The Welch Litigants and DISH filed five separate motions for summary judgment totaling
98 pages. OneBeacon argues that these filings are a clear attempt to evade the court’s procedures,
which cap all memoranda, absent leave of court, to twenty-five pages. Dkt. 245. OneBeacon argues
that the Welch Litigants and DISH should be limited to one memorandum or that the combined
memoranda should be limited to twenty-five pages in total. Id. The Welch Litigants and DISH
argue that neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor this court’s procedures limit a party to
filing only one motion for summary judgment and that each of the motions filed address distinct
claims that warrant separate briefing. Dkt. 264. Morever, the Welch Litigants and OneBeacon point
out that even though OneBeacon filed only one motion for summary judgment, which was limited
to twenty-five pages, it supplemented the motion with a ten-page statement of undisputed facts. See
Dkt. 237-1. OneBeacon has filed responses to the Welch Litigants’ and DISH’s motions, and its

response briefs total 94 pages. See Dkts. 247–251. Clearly, there is a lot to be said by all parties on
the issues in this case.
Most parties combine their arguments into one motion for summary judgment that addresses
all of the reasons that party believes summary judgment should be granted in its favor. The court
agrees with the Welch Litigants and DISH, however, that its procedures do not specifically state that
each party is limited to one motion for summary judgment. While the court generally prefers to
receive only one motion and definitely prefers parties to be succinct rather than verbose, the court
finds that striking the multiple motions that were filed here after they are fully briefed would be
extremely inefficient. Accordingly, OneBeacon’s motion to strike is DENIED.
Signed at Houston, Texas on April 22, 2014.

___________________________________
Gray H. Miller
United States District Judge

2