Slepcevich v. Intertractor America Corp

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin on 11/14/2018. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Proposed Findings of Fact (ECF No. 30 ) is stricken. (cc: all counsel)(mlm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MICHELLE L. SLEPCEVICH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-CV-1081

INTERTRACTOR AMERICA, CORP.,
Defendant.

ORDER

In connection with its motion for summary judgment, in addition to filing a reply
brief (ECF No. 28) and a reply to plaintiff’s additional proposed findings of fact (ECF No.
29), defendant filed a reply to plaintiff’s response to defendant’s 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 a summary judgment motion, it
does not allow the moving party to reply to the opposing party’s response to the moving
party’s proposed findings of fact. Because defendant is not authorized to reply to
plaintiff’s response to defendant’s proposed findings of fact, defendant’s reply (ECF No.
30) will be stricken.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendant’s Proposed Findings of Fact (ECF No. 30) is stricken.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 14th day of November, 2018.

_________________________
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN
U.S. Magistrate Judge

2