Opinion
3:19-cv-264-DPM 3:21-cv-237-DPM
06-02-2022
BOOTHE FARMS, INC.; BIG RISK FARMS INC.; JEFFREY D. BOOTHE; TERRY BOOTHE; ADAM BOOTHE; RINEHART FAMILY FARMS II; MM FAMILY FARMS; and WILLIAM J. DORE, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated PLAINTIFFS v. THE DOW CHEMICAL CO.; DOW AGROSCIENCES, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; and E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO. DEFENDANTS STANLEY JONES; BLACK SPICE FARMS, INC.; BRITT JONES, INC.; HOGBACK FARM, INC.; J-CO FARMS; NORTH 40 FARMS, INC.; S&W FARMS; SIB FARMS; T&W FARMS; and SLOUGH FARMS INC., Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated PLAINTIFFS v. CORTEVA, INC. and CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE, LLC DEFENDANTS
ORDER
D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge.
Plaintiffs move to strike Defendants' four motions for partial summary judgment, arguing that they're contrary to the Local Rules, the Final Scheduling Order, needlessly multiplicious, and vexatious. Plaintiffs' embedded request for expedited consideration is granted. The Court appreciates Defendants' quick response.
The multiple motions are fine. The material circumstances differ from those in Pinson v. 45 Development, 2013 WL 4511321 (W.D. Ark. 23 August 2013). Here, the legal issues are complex, and separating those issues is helpful. No timing tangle was created. The Court sees no violation of a Local Rule or the Scheduling Order.
The motion to strike, Doc. 197, is denied. And the Court discourages any further motions about motion practice. Concentrate on the merits. If any party needs more time to respond adequately to any filing, simply ask and explain why.
So Ordered.