Ladik, Sandra et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 58

ORDER denying 56 Motion for Leave to File Separate Motions for Summary Judgment . Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 4/24/2014. (voc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SANDRA LADIK, PENNY PERKINS,
JACKIE GOEBEL, MARIE COGGINS
and SONDRA STEEB-LAMB,
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
13-cv-123-bbc
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has filed a motion for leave to file separate motions
for summary judgment with respect to each of the plaintiffs. Dkt. #56. In support of its
motion, defendant argues that there is little factual overlap among the plaintiffs’ claims and
that “permitting separate motions for summary judgment will afford the parties and the
Court the opportunity to address these distinct issues in a more efficient and readily
presentable manner.”

Dkt. #57 at 3-4. Although the dissimilarity of plaintiff’s claims

might have been a ground for severing the cases under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, I do not see how
it is more efficient to have five motions for summary judgment instead of one. All that
accomplishes is to require 15 briefs instead of three and to multiply by five the sets of
proposed findings of fact. Although I understand that a combined brief will be longer than
separate briefs, I do not see that as a reason for cluttering the docket sheet with five times
1

as many filings. Of course, the parties are free to organize their briefs and proposed findings
of fact in a manner that allows the parties to address each claim individually.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s motion for leave to file
multiple motions for summary judgment, dkt. #56, is DENIED.
Entered this 24th day of April, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

2