Scheffler v. County of Dunn

Filing 38

ORDER denying 37 Motion to Strike brief in opposition and for extension to file a complete brief. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/31/09. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------T R O Y K. SCHEFFLER, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 8 - cv -6 2 2 - b b c v. C O U N TY OF DUNN, D efendan t. --------------------------------------------Plaintiff Troy Scheffler, a resident of Coon Rapids, Minnesota, is proceeding on his state law access to records claim against defendant Dunn County. Defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment on June 29, 2009. Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to d efen dan t's motion on July 30, 2009. N ow before the court is plaintiff's motion to strike his brief in opposition to defendan t's motion for partial summary judgment and for an extension to file a complete brief in opposition. Dkt. #37. Plaintiff argues that he was confused as to what a "Brief in O pp osition " should include and when it should be filed. However, plaintiff has been info rm ed of this court's procedures concerning summary judgment on two occasions. T he February 10, 2009 Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order issued by Magistrate

1

Judge Stephen L. Crocker warns the parties to read the whole order when it is received, describes motions for summary judgment and refers the parties to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and to the attached "Procedure Governing Summary Judgment." Dkt. #10. The order advises pro se plaintiffs to read the procedure now and warns that they will not get an extension of the 30-day deadline to file a response to a summary judgment motion. The order states as f o l lo w s : The only way to make sure that the court will consider your documents is to start early, do them right the first time, and file them and serve them on time. If you do not do things the way it says in Rule 56 and in the court's written summary judgment procedure, then the court will not consider your documents. T he "Procedure To Be Followed on Summary Judgment" at Section II, Response to M o tio n for Summary Judgment, lists the specific items to be included in a response to a m o tio n for summary judgment, including a brief in opposition, a response to the moving party's proposed findings of fact, additional proposed findings of fact and evidentiary m aterials. The court gives examples of how a plaintiff can respond to the moving party's pro po sed findings of fact. Section III, Reply By Moving Party, states what the moving party needs to include in its reply brief. The procedure also provides a chart showing which do cum ents are to be filed by which deadline. Also attached to the order are documents entitled "Helpful Tips For Filing A

2

S u m m ary Judgment Motion In Cases Assigned to Judge Barbara B. Crabb" and "M em ora nd um to Pro Se Litigants Regarding Summary Judgment Motions In Cases A ssign ed to Judge Crabb." These attachments gives specific examples and explanations of the court's procedures. For example, tip number three states that "[y]our brief is the place to make your legal argument, not to restate facts." Also, the pro se memorandum addresses ho w to avoid the problem where a pro se plaintiff does not answer the defendant's proposed facts correctly. The purpose of the Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order and attachments is to explain to litigants who are representing themselves how to respond to a motion for sum m ary judgment filed by defendant. T h ese same attachments were provided to plaintiff a second time on June 30, 2009, w hen he was sent the briefing schedule after defendant filed its motion for partial summary judgm ent. Those attachments included a chart showing which documents were to be filed by which party by which deadline. Plaintiff's argument that he was confused as to what he was to submit as a response to defendant's motion for summary judgment is not believable. Instead, it appears that he m erely failed to read the specific instructions as to what he was to file and by what date. Further, he was advised almost six months ago that if he did not follow these procedures, his d ocu m e nts would not be considered. This is not a situation in which plaintiff tried to follow the court's procedures and made some mistakes that are easily rectified. Plaintiff's

3

subm ission demonstrates a complete disregard for compliance with the court's procedures. Therefore, I am denying plaintiff's motion to strike his brief in opposition and for an extension of time to file a complete brief.

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to strike brief in opposition and for an extensio n to file a complete brief, dkt. #37, is DENIED. E n tered this 31s t day of July, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

4