Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-2575-CM
March 18, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Madella Henderson has filed suit against defendants International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Local No. 31 of the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Workers of America (Local 31), and General Motors Corporation (GM) alleging various employment discrimination claims. Defendants UAW and Local 31 filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 76), and defendant GM filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 78). Plaintiff responded to both motions, and defendants replied accordingly. This matter is before the court on plaintiff's Motion to File Surreply or, in the Alternative to Strike Defendant's Replies (Doc. 105), plaintiff's Supplement to Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendants' Replies in Support of Summary Judgment (Doc. 109), and Joint Motion for Continuance of Trial or, in the Alternative, for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Disclosures and Other Filings and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 110).
The court notes that, in response to defendant GM's motion, plaintiff filed a 118-page opposition brief, asserting more than 300 additional assertions of fact. In response to defendants UAW and Local 31's motion, plaintiff filed a 96-page opposition brief, asserting more than 300 additional assertions of fact.
• Motion to File Surreply
The court notes that plaintiff filed a Supplement to Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendants' Replies in Support of Summary Judgment (Doc. 109) six days after plaintiff filed her original motion to file a surreply (Doc. 105). Attached to this supplement is plaintiff's surreply she is requesting be filed. Upon review, the court notes that the crux of plaintiff's surreply is merely more argument that summary judgment should be denied and that her claims should go to a jury. The court already is well aware of the arguments set forth by plaintiff in this case. However, in an abundance of caution, to the extent that plaintiff responds to any new or additional argument contained in defendants' reply briefs, the court grants plaintiff leave to file this surreply.
º Defendant GM
In plaintiff's original motion to file a surreply, plaintiff requests leave to provide additional documents in response to defendant GM's reply brief. Plaintiff contends that defendant GM's reply memorandum contains additional facts, specifically, an Affidavit from Valerie Lussier with documents attached. Defendant GM acknowledges that the documents were not previously produced in discovery, but contends that the records at issue were necessary to respond to allegations plaintiff set forth in her opposition brief. The allegations plaintiff made were essentially that particular employees were never criticized, written up, or disciplined in any manner, and the affidavits plaintiff used to support these allegations were not produced or otherwise set forth by plaintiff until plaintiff filed her opposition brief.
The court finds that the exhibits attached to defendant GM's reply memorandum were offered as rebuttal evidence, which it reserved the right to offer in its final exhibit list. Defendant GM merely offered these exhibits in response to contentions raised for the first time in plaintiff's opposition brief. The court concludes that the record is sufficiently complete and that allowing plaintiff to further submit evidence would be unnecessary and a waste of judicial resources.
Plaintiff also argues that defendant GM claims "repeatedly" throughout its reply brief that plaintiff has "abandoned" certain claims. Defendant GM points out that the word "abandoned" appears only twice in its reply brief. In any event, the court has allowed plaintiff to file a surreply, which sufficiently addresses this issue.
º Defendants UAW and Local 31
Plaintiff seeks leave to file a surreply "to respond to any new arguments" raised by defendant UAW and Local 31 in their reply brief. The court notes that plaintiff fails to identify what "new arguments" to which she refers. However, as set forth above, the court will consider plaintiff's contentions set forth in her surreply.
Plaintiff also seeks leave to "clarify her evidentiary support." The court will consider plaintiff's arguments in her surreply regarding whether certain facts are actually controverted or uncontroverted by defendants.
• Motion to Strike Briefs
Plaintiff argues that the reply briefs include new material and arguments not raised in their original motions and that, as a result, those briefs should be stricken. The court is skeptical as to whether defendants UAW and Local 31's reply actually contains new arguments. Moreover, to the extent that defendant GM's reply contains additional evidence, GM's offering of such evidence in rebuttal was warranted in these circumstances.
Plaintiff also asserts that defendant GM's brief should be stricken because its reply exceeds the length of its argument in its original memorandum and further exceeds the 30-page limit imposed in the scheduling order in this case. The court concludes that the length of defendant GM's reply brief was arguably necessitated by the size of plaintiff's opposition brief, which itself was 118 pages. The court denies plaintiff's request to strike defendants reply briefs.
• Motion for Continuance
Both plaintiff and defendants in this case request that the court move the trial of this matter from its current April 2003 setting to its May 2003 docket. The court grants the parties' request. The trial in this matter is hereby set to commence on May 6, 2003 at 9:30 a.m.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to File Surreply or, in the Alternative to Strike Defendant's Replies (Doc. 105) is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court grants plaintiff's request to file a surreply. Accordingly, the court directs the clerk's office to detach and file plaintiff's surreply originally attached to plaintiff's Supplement to Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendants' Replies in Support of Summary Judgment (Doc. 109). The court denies plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' reply briefs. The court also grants the parties' Joint Motion for Continuance of Trial or, in the Alternative, for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Disclosures and Other Filings and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 110).