From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fudali v. Pivotal Corporation

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Mar 16, 2005
Civil Action No. 03-1460 (EGS) (D.D.C. Mar. 16, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 03-1460 (EGS).

March 16, 2005


ORDER


The Court is troubled by the deficiencies in the statements of material facts accompanying the summary judgment pleadings in this case. Local Rule 7(h) requires separate statements of material facts from each party which shall include references to the parts of the record relied on to support each and every factual assertion. "Requiring strict compliance with the local rule is justified both by the nature of summary judgment and by the rule's purposes." Twist v. Meese, 854 F.2d 1421, 1424 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (noting that a failure to comply with the rule "may be fatal to the position of the non-complying party"); see also Gardels v. Central Intelligence Agency, 637 F.2d 770, 773 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (explaining that "[t]he procedure contemplated by the rule thus isolates the facts that the parties assert are material, distinguishes disputed from undisputed facts, and identifies the pertinent parts of the record").

Given the voluminous record in this matter, and given that each side has already raised objections to the other's statement of facts, see Pl's. Opp'n at 1 n. 1; Def's. Reply at 1-8, it is clear that this matter is not yet ready for judicial disposition. The burden is on the parties "to crystallize for the district court the material facts and relevant portions of the record." See Jackson v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett, Dunner, 101 F.3d 145, 151 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (noting that a district court "should not be obliged to sift through [the record] in order to make its own determination of what may, or may not, be a genuine issue of material fact").

Therefore, in order to aid the parties and the Court in the expeditious resolution of the parties' motions, it is hereby

ORDERED that the parties shall file their respective Rule 7(h) statements in a single consolidated side-by-side presentation adhering to the following format: (1) defendant's counsel shall convert its statement of undisputed material facts into a 2-column table and fill in the left side of the table with its statement; (2) plaintiff's counsel shall then respond to this statement point-by-point by filling in the right side of the table. Pursuant to LCvR 7(h), a blank space will indicate to the Court that the allegation has been admitted. An example is provided below:

CAPTION

Defendant's Statement of Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute Genuine Issues Necessary to be Litigated
1. On March 1, 1982 the sky [Blank] [Admits the over Washington, D.C. was blue allegation.] [record cite]
2. On March 2, 1982 the sky 2. Whether the sky was over Washington, D.C. was reasonably cloudy is an issue reasonably cloudy. [record for the jury. Some witnesses cite] testified that the sky was moderately clear. [record cite] Others saw no clouds at all. [record cite]
[No corresponding paragraph in 3. Weather patterns in the moving party's statement] Washington, D.C. were affected by a stronger-than-usual jetstream in 1982. [record cite]

Counsel are advised that the Court expects strict compliance with the requirements of Local Rule 7(h). All uncontroverted statements will be deemed admitted and all statements without specific citations to the record will be ignored.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to reconsideration upon the filing of a motion accompanied by defendant's contribution to the consolidated statement of facts by no later than April 4, 2005. In order to facilitate the production of this consolidated statement, defendant's counsel is

FURTHER ORDERED to serve plaintiff's counsel with a non-PDF version of this statement via email or computer floppy disk by no later than April 4, 2005; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's counsel shall fill in the table as described above and file the completed statement with the Court by no later than April 18, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Fudali v. Pivotal Corporation

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Mar 16, 2005
Civil Action No. 03-1460 (EGS) (D.D.C. Mar. 16, 2005)
Case details for

Fudali v. Pivotal Corporation

Case Details

Full title:MARJORIE FUDALI, Plaintiff, v. PIVOTAL CORPORATION, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Mar 16, 2005

Citations

Civil Action No. 03-1460 (EGS) (D.D.C. Mar. 16, 2005)

Citing Cases

Banks v. District of Columbia

This court has long recognized that the "[t]he courts in this circuit demand `strict compliance' with Local…