Greengrass v. International Monetary Systems Ltd

Filing 42

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 6/7/2013. 30 MOTION to Strike DENIED, with exception of request to strike expert opinion of Prof. Fallone, which the Court will hold in abeyance; 32 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Summary Judgment Memorandum of Law, Amended Proposed Material Facts, and Amended Affidavit of Martin Sklapsky GRANTED. Page limit for Plaintiff's response to Defendant's amended motion will be 40 pages. (cc: all counsel)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CELIA GREENGRASS,
Plaintiff,
-vsCase No. 12-C-212
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY SYSTEMS,
Ltd.,
Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

This is a claim for unlawful retaliation under Title VII. Both parties filed
motions for summary judgment on April 19. Instead of responding to the defendant’s
motion, Celia Greengrass moved to strike the entire motion for noncompliance with
this district’s rules governing summary judgment procedure. Motions to strike on such
grounds are explicitly disfavored by those same local rules.

A motion “seeking

sanctions for alleged noncompliance with a Local Rule” should not be filed “unless the
alleged violation is egregrious or unfairly prejudicial,” a standard which reflects “the
Court’s expectation that counsel will rarely file such motions.” Gen. L.R. 83(f) (and
Committee Comments); see also Civil L.R. 56(b)(9), Committee Comment (“collateral
motions in the summary judgment process, including motions to strike, are disfavored.
Whenever possible all arguments relating to the other party’s submissions should be
contained in the memoranda”).

Greengrass thinks her motion is justified because, well, there were lots of
errors. She claims that she is not attempting to gain a tactical advantage, but then
opposes the defendant’s motion to correct the errors that supposedly necessitated her
motion in the first instance. The Court sees nothing that was raised in Greengrass’s
motion that could not simply have been raised in opposition to the defendant’s motion.
Greengrass claims that the sheer number of problems necessitated an eleven-page
brief, which would have then left little room for substantive response (the local rules
limit summary judgment opposition briefs to 30 pages). Quite frankly, the Court
doubts that eleven pages (or any pages) were necessary to address these issues, but if
Greengrass thinks they are so important, she is always free to file a motion to enlarge
the page limits, which the Court usually grants as a matter of course on a showing of
good cause. In fact, the Court will sua sponte expand Greengrass’s page limit for her
response brief to forty pages.
Greengrass also moves to strike the expert report of Professor Edward Fallone
on Daubert grounds. The Court will defer ruling on this request until the motions for
summary judgment are fully briefed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. Greengrass’s motion to strike [ECF No. 30] is DENIED, with the
exception of the request to strike the expert opinion of Professor Fallone,
which the Court will hold in abeyance;
-2-

2. Defendant’s motion for leave to file an Amended Memorandum of Law in
Support of Summary Judgment, Amended Statement of Proposed Material
Facts, and Amended Affidavit of Martin Sklapsky [ECF No. 32] is
GRANTED; and
3. The page limit for Greengrass’s response to the defendant’s amended
motion for summary judgment is now forty (40) pages.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 7th day of June, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-3-