Opinion
No. 98 C 8085
July 25, 2000
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Roslyn G. Austin ("plaintiff"), has filed her "Motion for Leave to Supplement Instanter Memorandum In Opposition" ("Motion for Leave") (doc. #18-1) to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant, Cole Taylor Bank ("defendant"). The Motion for Leave states that its purpose is to bring plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition "into compliance with N.D. Illinois local practice" by filing a "12(M) Statement." The plaintiff's Motion for Leave does not fulfill that purpose for several reasons, and therefore it is denied.
At the outset, the Court notes that the "supplemental materials" plaintiff seeks to file do not make use of the proper numerical reference to the Northern District of Illinois' Local Rules. These rules were amended, effective September 1, 1999, to designate Rule 56.1 as the controlling rule governing the submission and content of the factual statements and supporting evidentiary materials required when a motion for summary judgment is filed and served, and when a motion in opposition is filed and served. Rule 56.1(a) governs the submission of the moving party's statement and materials, and Rule 56.1(b) governs the submission of the non-moving party's statement and materials. In this case, plaintiff is the "opposing party" with regard to defendant's motion for summary judgment. Thus, her supplemental materials need to comply with Rule 56.1(b), formerly Rule 12(N). The plaintiff's motion for leave to file supplemental materials in conformance with former local rule 12(M) is therefore inexplicable. However, even putting that "technical error" aside, the misnumbering of the supplemental statement pales in comparison to the more substantive defects revealed within.
As the non-moving party in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff was required, in the first instance, to file " a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement, including, in the case of any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon" (N.D.Ill. Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(A) (emphasis added)). The supplemental statement that plaintiff seeks leave to file is not a response to defendant's Rule 56.1(a) Statement of Facts, as it does not specify which of defendants' statements are admitted, which are disputed, and what evidentiary material supports plaintiff's claim that a particular fact is disputed. Nor does plaintiff's proposed statement set forth "additional facts" under Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B), as it merely recites the very same facts that she included in her opposition memorandum under the heading "Introduction." Plaintiff's proposed supplement is, in substance, a supplemental brief, as it offers no new facts but instead seeks to argue the significance or meaning of facts contained in defendants' Rule 56.1(a) statement. Plaintiff's proposed statement does not comply with the organizational or substantive framework contemplated and required by Local Rule 56.1(b), and therefore it will be stricken.
Viewed as a tacit request to file a supplemental brief (which is what the proposed statement really is), the motion also is without merit. Plaintiff filed her supporting memorandum late, and during the telephone conference in which leave for that late filing was granted, plaintiffs counsel did not indicate any need for additional time to file a supplemental brief Nor does her current motion indicate any good reason why a supplemental pleading should be allowed.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has made very clear that the district court's local rules may be strictly enforced. Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920-23 (7th Cir. 1994). In particular, failure by a non-moving party to controvert the factual averments set forth in the defendant's own statement of facts is essentially a failure to specify the genuine issues of material fact that plaintiff contends are in dispute and warrant a trial rather than summary judgment. This failure is tantamount to an admission of the defendant's facts. Id. at 922. The Northern District's Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) "leaves no doubt as to the ramifications of failing to submit an appropriate factual statement in opposition to a motion for summary judgment." Id. at 922. In the Northern District of Illinois: "All material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of the opposing party." See N.D.Ill.L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B).
The factual statements required by Rule 56.1 are
not merely superfluous abstracts of the evidence. Rather, they are intended to alert the court to precisely what factual questions are in dispute and point the court to the specific evidence in the record that supports a party's position on each of these questions. They are, in short, roadmaps, and without them the court should not have to proceed further, regardless of how readily it might be able to distill the relevant information from the record on its own.Waldridge, 24 F.3d at 923.
Nowhere in her statement of facts did plaintiff attempt to identify the particular facts she believed to be in dispute and to correlate those facts with the relevant portions of the evidentiary record, "and that in essence is what Rule 56.1 demands." Id. Although the plaintiff did cite to particular portions of the evidentiary record submitted by the defendant in support of its statement of facts, the Court is not satisfied with the plaintiffs submission, because it fails to specifically identify the precise factual issues that create a material dispute of fact. Under Waidridge, the Court is not required to do that work for the plaintiff
CONCLUSION
The plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File (doc. # 18-1) is therefore DENIED. The Court will rule on the defendant's pending Motion for Summary Judgment by mail.