Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin v. KEMPTHORNE et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew the motion on or before 10/6/09. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 9/14/09. (rep)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------L A C COURTE OREILLES BAND OF L A K E SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS O F WISCONSIN, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 8 - cv -6 5 9 - b b c v. KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of the Interior; G E O R G E T. SKIBINE, Acting Deputy Assistant S ecretary of the Interior for Policy and Economic D e velo p m e nt and Acting Assistant Secretary for In dian Affairs; KEVIN SKENANDORE, Acting D irecto r, Bureau of Indian Education; and LYNN L A FF ER T Y , Education Line Officer, Bureau of In dian Education, D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------Plaintiff Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin com m enced this action for declaratory and injunctive relief barring defendants from pursuing a collection action to recover funds relating to the disallowance of costs with respect to the sin gle audit of the Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe School for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2005 . On February 24, 2009 plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment suggesting that the matter could be resolved immediately as a matter of law. The briefing on the motion was

1

stayed pending resolution of a motion to dismiss and subsequently continued pursuant to R ule 56(f), when the magistrate judge agreed with defendants that discovery was necessary to allow them to respond to the motion. Plaintiff appealed the magistrate judge's ruling un der Rule 56(f) and I affirmed it. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment has now been pending for more than six m onths without any substantive opposition. Given the unanticipated extensions and delays to complete discovery, it appears that the most appropriate course of action is to deny the original motion for summary judgment and give plaintiff an opportunity to advise the court w hether it wants to pursue the motion.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment of February 24, 2009 is DENIED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 56(f). Plaintiff may renew its motion, with or without supplementation based upon intervening discovery, on or before

O ctober 6, 2009. All other deadlines shall remain in effect. E n tered this 14 t h day of September, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

2