Opinion
4:22-CV-42-DMB-JMV
04-11-2023
LASHEA MOORE, as parent and next friend of Z.S., a minor PLAINTIFF v. CLARKSDALE MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
DEBRA M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On March 28, 2023, Clarksdale Municipal School District and Dr. Earl Joe Nelson filed a motion for summary judgment, Doc. #99, a memorandum brief in support, Doc. #100, and “Defendants Clarksdale Municipal School District and Superintendent Dr. Earl Joe Nelson's Statement of Undisputed Facts,” Doc. #101.
Neither the Local Rules of this Court nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate or authorize the filing of a separate itemization of facts. Automation Design & Sols., Inc. v. Yeliseyev, No. 3:08-cv-589, 2012 WL 12974010, at *4 (S.D.Miss. Feb. 29, 2012). Such filings provide an avenue for circumventing the page limits imposed by the Local Rules. See Landrum v. Conseco Life Ins. Co., No. 1:12-cv-5, 2013 WL 6019303, at *15 (S.D.Miss. Nov. 13, 2013) (statement of facts in motion deemed attempt to circumvent page limits). Because the statement of facts here should have been incorporated in the memorandum brief filed in support of the summary judgment motion, the School District and Nelson's separate statement of facts [101] is STRICKEN and their motion for summary judgment [99] is DENIED without prejudice. Within seven (7) days of the entry of this order, the School District and Nelson may refile their motion for summary judgment and memorandum brief in accordance with the Court's procedural rules. If refiled, the summary judgment motion and memorandum brief may not include any new basis for summary judgment or new legal argument.
SO ORDERED