DeKeyser et al v Thyssenkrupp Waupaca Inc

Filing 499

ORDER DENYING 498 Letter request to strike [496-2] Wrongly Decided Cases Using Plaintiffs Merely Potentially Unsafe Legal Standard, filed by Thyssenkrupp Waupaca Inc, issued as part of its briefing as directed in 487 Hearing directing parties to submit additional briefing on nature of the work legal standard, signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 07/02/2014. Instead, the Court will allow Plaintiffs ten days to file an additional response to Defendants non-complying exhibit, limited to five pages. See Order for full detail. SEE ORDER FOR FULL DETAIL. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

RYAN DEKEYSER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 08-C-0488

THYSSENKRUPP WAUPACA, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER

After the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded this case, the Court held a telephone
scheduling conference with the parties to discuss, among other things, case management. The
parties subsequently agreed to a briefing schedule concerning the “nature of the work” legal
standard. (ECF No. 491.) It was later amended by the parties. (ECF No. 493.) Under the modified
schedule, each party was to file initial briefs simultaneously on June 16, 2014, and responses
simultaneously on June 30, 2014. All of the briefs were not to exceed 10 pages. The briefs have
now been filed and generally appear to comply with the agreed upon rules. (ECF Nos. 494–97.)
Defendant’s counsel attached to its response an exhibit entitled “Wrongly Decided Cases
Using Plaintiffs’ ‘Merely Potentially Unsafe’ Legal Standard.” (ECF No. 496-2.) The five-page
exhibit is a spreadsheet identifying 17 cases from around the country, summarizing their holdings,
and explaining how the application of Plaintiffs’ proposed standard would lead to a different result.
After the briefs were filed, Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the exhibit, contending that Defendant
exceeded the page limit because the exhibit contains additional legal analysis. Defendant’s counsel
agrees with Plaintiffs’ objection and requests that the Court disregard the exhibit and strike it from

the docket. (ECF No. 498.) Defendant’s counsel also requests that the Court consider an alteration
to its response brief that references the exhibit and its contents.
The Court, however, had already reviewed the exhibit and found it to be a useful summary
before Defendant’s counsel filed the request. The Court agrees that the exhibit constitutes legal
analysis and, therefore, Defendant exceeded the page limit. But the Court is loathe to disregard the
exhibit when it may prove useful in considering the arguments by both parties on the “nature of the
work” standard. As a result, the Court will not disregard the exhibit and remove it from the docket.
Instead, the Court will allow Plaintiffs to file an additional response to Defendant’s noncomplying exhibit. Plaintiffs’ additional response will be limited to five pages, but they may use
whatever format they find most convenient to respond to the legal analysis and conclusions
contained in Defendant’s exhibit. In the Court’s view, permitting Plaintiffs to file the additional
response will cure any advantage Defendant gained by filing the exhibit without making the Court’s
review of this legal issue more difficult. Plaintiffs’ additional response will be due within 10 days
of the date of this order.
SO ORDERED this

2nd day of July, 2014.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2