Brooks v. Community Memorial Hospital of Menomonee Falls Inc et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin on 4/9/2018. Because defendants are not authorized to reply to plaintiff's response to defendants' proposed findings of fact, defendants' reply (ECF No. 30 ) will be stricken. (cc: all counsel)(mlm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Case No. 17-CV-659
COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
OF MENOMONEE FALLS, INC., et al.,
In connection with their motion for summary judgment, in addition to filing a
reply brief (ECF No. 27) and a reply to plaintiff’s additional proposed findings of fact
(ECF No. 29), defendants filed a reply to plaintiff’s response to defendants’ proposed
findings of fact (ECF No. 30). Although Civil Local Rule 56(b)(3)(B) authorizes a reply to
any additional proposed findings of fact submitted by a party opposing the summary
judgment motion, it does not allow for the moving party to reply to the opposing
party’s response to the moving party’s proposed findings of fact.
Under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the court may upon
motion or upon its own initiative strike from a pleading any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter. Because defendants are not authorized to reply to
plaintiff’s response to defendants’ proposed findings of fact, defendants’ reply (ECF No.
30) will be stricken.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact (ECF No. 30) is stricken.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 9th day of April, 2018.
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?