Opinion
Case Number 99 C 6173
October 23, 2001
ORDER
On September 27, 2001, this court granted Defendant J.B. Hunt's motion for summary judgment. In its decision, the court noted that Plaintiff had not filed any written response to the motion and that Defendant's unrebutted submission established that Defendant is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law.
The September 27 opinion has not discouraged Plaintiff Robert More from filing additional motions. On October 10, 2001, he filed "Plaintiff's Motion Filed Instanter on 10/11/01 to Obtain `Confirmation' from the Court or in the Alternative to Obtain the Relief that would Render Such `Confirmations' Unnecessary." On October 12, 2001, he filed a Motion to Reconsider the Granting of the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The first of these motions asks the court to "confirm" a number of facts and legal conclusions — for example, that he [now] requests a hearing on the motion for summary judgment; that the Federal Rules permit up to one year for the filing of a Rule 60(b) motion; that Plaintiff objects to the entry of summary judgment; and that a hearing is necessary "regarding the 10 to 12 objections the plf [sic] has to the 10 or 12 substantial errors made by the Court in this case." The court declines to confirm anything beyond what is reflected in the record, but notes as follows:
(1) Plaintiff contends he was unable to respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment without some further statement from Defendant concerning the reasons for his discharge. The court believes Defendant's motion adequately sets forth these reasons.
(2) Plaintiff contends he was unable to respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment because the court refused to permit Plaintiff to file his response under seal without furnishing a copy to Defendant. The court stands by its refusal to accept an ex parte submission as inimical to due process.
(3) Plaintiff seeks some form of assurance that his failure to respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment will not be deemed a waiver of his right to object to that motion. The court has assured Plaintiff that any objections he has made in written form or on the record are preserved for appeal, but has also cautioned him that the Court of Appeals will ordinarily not consider any materials or arguments not presented to the district court.
(4) Plaintiff complains that the court granted Defendant additional time to respond to his discovery requests but refused to delay ruling on the summary judgment until Plaintiff had received requested "confirmations." The court considered and granted every reasonable request for additional time made by either party in this case. As explained repeatedly, Plaintiff was not entitled to, nor did he actually require any further explanations or confirmations from Defendant or from the court in order to submit a response to the motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration presents many of the same arguments. In addition, that motion presents, for the first time, facts that Plaintiff believes preclude summary judgment. The motion is untimely and in any event not supported by factual materials as required by Rule 56. Nor are these facts properly considered on a motion for reconsideration: such a motion is not an avenue for Mr. More to present arguments or evidence that he could reasonably have raised earlier. The court notes, however, that none of the purported facts — that Plaintiff and other truck drivers regularly exceed the legal driving limitations, that Mr. Eichler allegedly falsified documents, that federal regulations permit motor carriers to dispense with paper logs, and that Plaintiff was not accorded progressive discipline — defeats Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Mr. More's motions are denied. The court has entered judgment in favor of Defendant J.B. Hunt and against Plaintiff. That judgment is final and appealable.