Opinion
20-cv-1434 (NEB/KMM)
12-10-2021
MARC AMOURI BAKAMBIA, Plaintiff, v. PAUL SCHNELL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
KATHERINE MENENDEZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 14, 2021, the “Centurion Defendants, ” Dr. Louis Shicker, Dr. Darryl Quiram, and Brent Plackner, P.A., filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 240]. Mr. Bakambia has responded to the motion. He now seeks leave to file a supplemental memorandum in which he argues that the Centurion Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be denied because their counsel failed to meet and confer with him prior to filing the motion, and they have not met and conferred with him since it was filed. [ECF Nos. 338, 338-1]. Mr. Bakambia's motion for leave to file the supplemental memorandum is GRANTED to the extent that it will be considered part of the record.
Although the Court grants leave to supplement the record with his memorandum, no response from the Centurion Defendants is required. Moreover, the Court advises the parties that it will not be recommending denial of the Centurion Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on an alleged failure to meet and confer. Local Rule 7.1's meet-and-confer requirement does not apply to motions for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. D. Minn. LR 7.1(a) (creating an exception to the ordinary meet-and-confer requirement for summary-judgment motions). Neither the Pretrial Scheduling Order's reference to Local Rule 7.1(c) [ECF No. 136 at 4], nor the other Orders referenced in Mr. Bakambia's motion [ECF Nos. 94, 231], alter the terms of the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.