Mayes v. City of Hammond, in, 2:03-CV-379-PRC.
| Decision Date | 05 July 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:03-CV-379-PRC.,2:03-CV-379-PRC. |
| Parties | Larry MAYES, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HAMMOND, INDIANA, Former Police Chief Frank Dupey, Detective Sgt. Raymond Myszak, Detective Michael Solan, and John and Jane Does 1 through 50, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Barry C. Scheck PHV, Jennifer E. Laurin Phv, Nick J. Brustin PHV, Cochran Neufeld & Scheck LLP, New York, NY, John L. Stainthorp Phv, People's Law Office, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
David C. Jensen, Karol A. Schwartz, Robert J. Feldt, Eichhorn & Eichhorn, William Joseph O'Connor, William J. O'Connor Attorney At Law, Joseph Banasiak, Bosch & Banasiak, Hammond, IN, Steven A. Kurowski, Law Office of Steven A. Kurowski, Schererville, IN, for Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on (1) Defendants' Motion to Strike the Plaintiffs Response Brief to the Defendants'. Motion for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiffs "Appendix A" [DE 190], filed by Defendants City of Hammond ("City") and John and Jane Does 1 through 50 on May 4, 2006; (2) Defendant Detective Sgt. Raymond Myszak's Motion to Strike the Plaintiffs Response Brief to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiffs Appendix A [DE 194], filed by Defendant Detective Sgt. Raymond Myszak on May 5, 2006; (3) Defendants Detective Michael Solan and Former Police Chief, Frank Dupey's Motion to Strike the Plaintiffs Response Brief to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiffs Appendix A [DE 196], filed by Defendants Michael Solan and Frank Dupey on May 5, 2006; (4) Defendant's Second Motion to Strike as to the Plaintiffs Response to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiff s "Appendix A" [DE 211], filed by the City on May 8, 2006; (5) Defendant Detective Sergeant Raymond Myszak's Second Motion to Strike as to the Plaintiffs Response Brief to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiffs Appendix A [DE 217], filed by Myszak on May 12, 2006; (6) a Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 118], filed by the City on March 14, 2006; (7) Defendant Detective Sgt. Raymond Myszak's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 121], filed by Myszak on March 14, 2006; (8) a Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 132], filed by Dupey on March 14, 2006; (9) a Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 134], filed by Solan on March 14, 2006; and (10) Plaintiffs Motion for Oral Argument of Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment [DE 186], filed by the Plaintiff, Larry Mayes, on April 13, 2006.
Larry Mayes filed a Complaint in this matter on September 3, 2003.
On December 19, 2003, Mayes filed an Amended Complaint, containing the following counts: Count I (42 U.S.C. § 1983 4th Amendment Claim); Count II (42 U.S.C. § 1983 14th Amendment-Denial of Fair Trial Claim); Count III (42 U.S.C. § 1983 Supervisory Liability Claim); Count IV (42 U.S.C. § 1983 Monell Claim Against the City of Hammond); Count V (False Arrest and Imprisonment Claim under Indiana law); Count VI (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim under Indiana law); and Count VII (Respondeat Superior Against the City of Hammond). Mayes has sued Dupey and Solan in their individual and official capacities for supervisory liability, and has sued Solan and Myszak in their individual capacities for their acts performed in the scope of their employment and under color of state law.
Defendants the City, Myszak, John Ratajczak, Solan, Robert Townsell, Sgt Dennis Williams, and John and Jane Does filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint on January 13, 2004. On March 26, 2005, DuPey and Solan filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint, and on April 5, 2004, Robert Seaman and Richard Tumildalsky filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint.
On September 22, 2005, a Motion to Dismiss Defendant Dennis Williams was filed, and on September 29, 2005, the Court granted the motion, dismissing Williams without prejudice.
On March 13, 2006, a Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Death of Detective Sergeant Robert Townsell was filed. Mayes filed a response, but subsequently withdrew the response. On May 8, 2006, the Court granted the motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Townsell against Mayes.
On April 13, 2006, a Stipulation to Dismiss Robert Seaman and Richard Tumildalsky was filed, which the Court granted on April 25, 2006, dismissing Seaman and Tumildalsky without prejudice.
On April 26, 2006, a Stipulation to Dismiss John Ratajczak was filed, and on May 8, 2006, the Court granted the stipulation, dismissing Ratajczak without prejudice.
The parties have consented to have this case assigned to a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings and to order the entry of a final judgment in this case. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction to decide this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
On April 14, 2006, Mayes filed responses to the motions for summary judgment filed by the City, Myszak, Solan, and Dupey. Attached to the Memorandum in Support of each response is a fifty-five page, single-spaced "Appendix" entitled "Exhibit A: Plaintiff's Statement of Genuine Issues of Material Fact" ("Appendix A"). Various defendants have filed two sets of Motions to Strike this Appendix A. The Court will address each set of motions in turn.
In the first round of Defendants' Motions to Strike the Plaintiff's Response Brief to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiffs "Appendix A," ("Motion to Strike") Defendants City, Myszak, Solan, and Dupey argue that Mayes' 55-page Appendix A, entitled "Plaintiffs Statement of Genuine Issues of Material Fact," contains argumentative headings, lengthy interpretation, and in-depth analysis of the exhibits and in some instances is unsupported by evidentiary citation. Defendants generally contend that Appendix A is an inappropriate extension of Mayes' Response Brief and, thus, both the Appendix and the Response Brief should be stricken. Defendants provide a few examples of the alleged violations.
Local Rule 56.1 provides that, in opposing a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party shall file a "Statement of Genuine Issues" "setting forth, with appropriate citations to discovery responses, affidavits, depositions, or other admissible evidence, all material facts as to which it is contended there exists a genuine issue necessary to be litigated." L.R. 56.1. The Rule permits the statement of genuine issues to be filed in the text of the response or as an appendix to the response. "The purpose of the 56.1 statement is to identify for the Court the evidence supporting a party's factual assertions in an organized manner: it is not intended as a forum for factual or legal argument." Malec v. Sanford, 191 F.R.D. 581, 585 (N.D.Ill.2000).
Local Rule 7.1 governs motion practice and the length and form of briefs. Rule 7.1(b) requires that a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 be accompanied by a separate supporting brief. The Rule goes on to require that, "[e]xcept by permission of the court, no brief shall exceed 25 pages in length (exclusive of any pages containing a table of contents, table of authorities, and appendices), and no reply brief shall exceed 15 pages." L.R. 7.1(d). The Rules provide no page limit for the statement of genuine issues.1
A party who wishes to argue that portions of a statement of genuine issues contain errors or are inadmissible on evidentiary grounds may file a motion to strike those portions of the statement of genuine issues. Goltz v. University of Notre Dame du Lac, 177 F.R.D. 638, 640 (N.D.Ind.1997).2 "Pleadings that do not conform with the local rules may be stricken at the discretion of the court." Id. at 640 (citing Bell, Boyd & Lloyd v. Tapy, 896 F.2d 1101, 1103 (7th Cir.1990); Pfeil v. Rogers, 757 F.2d 850, 858 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1107, 106 S.Ct. 1513, 89 L.Ed.2d 912 (1986); Graham v. Security Say. & Loan, 125 F.R.D. 687, 688-89 (N.D.Ind.1989), aff'd, 914 F.2d 909 (7th Cir.1990)). More importantly, it is the function of a court, with or without a motion to strike, to review carefully both statements of material facts and statements of genuine issues and the headings contained therein and to eliminate from consideration any argument, conclusions, and assertions unsupported by the documented evidence of record offered in support of the statement. See, e.g., SEC v. KPMG LLP, 412 F.Supp.2d 349, 392 (S.D.N.Y.2006); Sullivan v. Henry Smid Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., No. 04 C 5167, 05 C 2253, 2006 WL 980740, *2 n. 2 (N.D.Ill. Apr.10, 2006); Tibbetts v. RadioShack Corp., No. 03 C 2249, 2004 WL 2203418, at *16 (N.D.Ill. Sept.29, 2004); Rosado v. Taylor, 324 F.Supp.2d 917, 920 n. 1 (N.D.Ind.2004).
The remedy requested in the first series of Motions to Strike, which ask the Court to strike Mayes' Response and Appendix A in their entirety, is overly broad because much of the Statement of Genuine Issues is a proper recitation of the facts with appropriate citations and because the Court is capable of redacting from the Statement of Genuine Issues and of disregarding all argumentative headings, interpretation or analysis of the facts, or unfounded assertions of fact found in the Statement of Genuine Issues.3 See, e.g. BASF AG v. Great Am. Assur. Co., No. 04 C 6969, 2006 WL 1235943 . The Court's scrutiny of Mayes' Statement of Genuine Issues applies equally to the Court's review of the various Defendants' Statements of Material Facts offered in support of the Motions for Summary Judgment. To the extent that Mayes cross-references arguments and analysis made in response briefs to other motions for summary judgment, the Court will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGrath v. Everest Nat. Ins. Co.
...and assertions unsupported by the documented evidence of record offered in support of the statement." Mayes v. City of Hammond, IN, 442 F.Supp.2d 587, 596 (N.D.Ind.2006). Everest generally contends that the majority of the last 50 paragraphs of McGrath's Statement of Material Facts are conc......
-
Mayes v. City of Hammond, Ind.
...precedential and other values of this Court's decision denying in part Hammond's motion for summary judgment, Mayes v. City of Hammond, et. al., 442 F.Supp.2d 587 (N.D.Ind.2006). This decision will remain as an official decision of United States court and will continue to be consulted and c......
-
Sanders v. City of Chi.
...kickback scheme and did nothing to stop it could be relevant to supervisory liability in the abstract, see Mayes v. City of Hammond, Ind., 442 F.Supp.2d 587, 635 (N.D. Ind. 2006), but Sanders has failed to establish that Defendant Mangialardi played any supervisoryrole in connection with th......
-
Thagard v. Lauber
...nom. Daughtry v. City of New York , No. 12-CV-2655 (NGG) (RER), 2015 WL 2454117 (E.D.N.Y. May 21, 2015) ; see Mayes v. City of Hammond , 442 F.Supp.2d 587, 648 (N.D. Ind. 2006) ("[T]here are genuine issues of fact regarding the suggestive and tentative nature of the ... identification."). T......
-
Questions Calling for a Conclusion
...as biochemistry and toxicology to offer opinions on causes of illness, even though they are not doctors. 21 Mayes v. City of Hammond , 442 F.Supp.2d 587 (N.D.Ind. 2006). A hypnosis expert’s testimony was admissible in that the expert was qualified to testify as to the rules governing the us......
-
Published Writings
...coupled with cross-examination was a more appropriate and fine-tuned mechanism for arriving at the truth. Mayes v. City of Hammond , 442 F.Supp.2d 587 (N.D.Indiana, 2006). In a former prisoner’s §1983 action against police officials, treatises were not admissible under the hearsay exception......
-
Questions calling for a conclusion
...as biochemistry and toxicology to o൵er opinions on causes of illness, even though they are not doctors. 22 Mayes v. City of Hammond , 442 F.Supp.2d 587 (N.D.Ind. 2006). A hypnosis expert’s testimony was admissible in that the expert was qualiied to testify as to the rules governing the use ......
-
Published writings
...coupled with cross-examination was a more appropriate and ine-tuned mechanism for arriving at the truth. Mayes v. City of Hammond , 442 F.Supp.2d 587 (N.D.Indiana, 2006). In a former prisoner’s §1983 action against police o൶cials, treatises were not admissible under the hearsay exception fo......