Harleysville L. Sts. Ins. Co. v. Granite Ridge Bldes

Full title: HARLEYSVILLE LAKE STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. GRANITE RIDGE…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

Date published: Jan 13, 2009

CAUSE NO.: 1:06-CV-397-TS (N.D. Ind. Jan. 13, 2009)

Opinion

CAUSE NO.: 1:06-CV-397-TS.

January 13, 2009

OPINION AND ORDER

THERESA SPRINGMANN, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Oral Argument on Summary Judgment Motions Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5 [DE 134], filed on January 9, 2009. On January 9, Defendant Design Basics, Inc., filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Oral Argument [DE 135].

In its Renewed Motion for Oral Argument, the Plaintiff asks the Court to set this matter for oral argument on the pending Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, allowing each side thirty minutes to address issues addressed by the parties in the summary judgment motions and briefs. The Plaintiff argues that the facts are complex, that the issues are complex and involve questions of law that no Indiana court has considered previously in a published opinion, and that this case has the potential to set legal precedent in Indiana. In its Renewed Motion for Oral Argument, the Plaintiff also repeats arguments it makes at length in its Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 128], its Surresponse in Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment [DE 118], and its Response to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment [DE 94].

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5(a), the Court has discretion whether to grant or deny a party's request for a hearing. In this case, the parties have had an abundance of opportunities to present their arguments to the Court. The parties have submitted the ordinary set of briefing on the pending Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, including supporting, response, and reply briefs. The parties have also been permitted to submit surresponse and surreply briefs. And, now that Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey has submitted his Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff has filed its Objection to the Report and Recommendation, and Defendant Design Basics, Inc., has filed a Response to Plaintiff's Objection. Because the parties have been afforded this abundance of opportunities to thoroughly brief the issues and develop their arguments, the Court finds that oral argument is not warranted and will deny the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Oral Argument.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Oral Argument on Summary Judgment Motions Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5 [DE 134].

SO ORDERED.