Yuhe Diamba Wembi v. Metro Air Serv., 14 C 10407, 15 C 464

• Decision Date: 18 July 2016
• Docket Number: 14 C 10407, 15 C 464
• Citation: 195 F.Supp.3d 957
• Parties: YUHE DIAMBA WEMBI, Plaintiff, v. METRO AIR SERVICE, Defendant. Yuhe D. Wembi, Plaintiff, v. Metro Air Service, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

195 F.Supp.3d 957

YUHE DIAMBA WEMBI, Plaintiff,

v.METRO AIR SERVICE, Defendant.

Yuhe D. Wembi, Plaintiff,

v.Metro Air Service, Defendant.

14 C 10407, 15 C 464

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed July 18, 2016

Yuhe Diamba Wembi, Chicago, IL, pro se.

Lawrence M. Donoghue, Lawrence M. Donoghue & Associates, PC, Northbrook, IL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Gary Scott Feinerman, United States District Judge

In December 2014, Yuhe Wembi brought Case 14 C 10407 against Metro Air Service, his then-employer, alleging race and color discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. , and age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Doc. 9 (14 C 10407). In January 2015, after Metro fired him, Wembi brought Case 15 C 464, alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of § 1981 and Title VII. Doc. 9 (15 C 464). Metro has moved for summary judgment on all claims. Doc. 38 (14 C 10407); Doc. 40 (15 C 464). In Case 14 C 10407, the motion is denied as to Wembi's failure to promote claim and granted as to all other claims. In Case 15 C 464, the motion is denied as to Wembi's retaliatory termination claim as it pertains to his filing of Case 14 C 10407 and granted as to all other claims.

Background

Consistent with the local rules, Metro filed a Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement of undisputed facts along with its summary judgment motion in each case. Doc. 40 (14 C 10407); Doc. 42 (15 C 464). All but one of the factual assertions in the Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statements cite evidentiary material in the record and are supported by the cited material. See N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(a) ("The statement referred to in (3) shall consist of short numbered paragraphs, including within each paragraph specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon to support the facts set forth in that paragraph."). The exception is a statement of negation, asserting that Wembi has not adduced evidence or testimony to establish certain facts, Doc. 40 (14 C 10407) at ¶ 28, and so that statement could not be supported by specific record citations. Also consistent with the local rules, Metro in each case filed and served on Wembi a Local Rule 56.2 Notice, which explains in detail the requirements of Local Rule 56.1. Doc. 41 (14 C 10407); Doc. 43 (15 C 464); see Ohio Nat'l Life Assurance Corp. v. Davis , 803 F.3d 904, 906 (7th Cir.2015) ("Local Rule 56.2 ... requires a party moving for summary judgment against a pro se litigant to inform his opponent of the procedures for complying with Fed R. Civ. P. 56.").

Despite receiving an additional four weeks to respond to Metro's summary judgment motions, Doc. 46 (14 C 10407); Doc. 48 (15 C 464), Wembi did not file a Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) response to either of Metro's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statements; nor did he file a Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) statement of additional facts. Instead, his response consists primarily of documents that Metro had filed as part of its summary judgment motions, including Wembi's interrogatory answers, Metro's discovery requests, several affidavits, deposition transcripts, and Metro's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statements. Doc. 47 (14 C 10407). Although Wembi numbered parts of his response to correspond to some of Metro's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) assertions from Case 15 C 464, neither his responses to those assertions, id. at 4, nor his numbered responses to specific paragraphs in certain affidavits that Metro filed with its summary judgment motions, id. at 16, cite any record material or supporting declarations or affidavits. Wembi did not offer numbered responses to Metro's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement from Case 14 C 10407, but instead made several arguments regarding his beliefs about certain facts in the case. Id. at 38. Wembi's response violates Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B), which requires the non-movant to file "a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement, including in the case of any disagreement, specific reference to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon." N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B). Wembi's response to Metro's affidavits is non-compliant for the additional reason that Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) requires responses "to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's [Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) ] statement," not directly to the record material that supports those paragraphs. Ibid.

In a filing after the summary judgment motions were fully briefed, Wembi makes several arguments to excuse his non-compliance with local rules. He contends that he "can't [c]ite facts because [Metro] refuses to provide requested documents"; that the "[l]ocal rule doesn't mention numbering paragraphs"; that he "state[s] personal knowledge based off what he was told by [Metro] and what he experienced while working there"; that he did not attach record material to his response because he requested that the court ask Metro "to bring documents to court to support [Wembi's] evidence"; and that he "has provided evidence since [the beginning] of the case although his evidence is [ ]being used against him." Doc. 53 (15 C 464) at 1.

These arguments are unpersuasive. Discovery began in May 2015, Doc. 21 (15 C 464), and closed prior to November 3, 2015, Doc. 37 (15 C 464), so Wembi had ample time to alert the court to Metro's alleged failure to produce documents. The local rules clearly require numbered paragraphs, see N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(A) ("numbered paragraphs"); N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B) ("each numbered paragraph"); N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C) ("short numbered paragraphs"), and also require the non-movant to support its response with "specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon" rather than non-record or non-affidavit assertions of personal knowledge. N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B). Nothing in the local rules, moreover, prevents a litigant's evidence from being used against him.

The Seventh Circuit "has consistently upheld district judges' discretion to require strict compliance with Local Rule 56.1." Flint v. City of Belvidere , 791 F.3d 764, 767 (7th Cir.2015) (citing cases); see also Stevo v. Frasor , 662 F.3d 880, 886–87 (7th Cir.2011) ("Because of the high volume of summary judgment motions and the benefits of clear presentation of relevant evidence and law, we have repeatedly held that district judges are entitled to insist on strict compliance with local rules designed to promote the clarity of summary judgment filings."); Cracco v. Vitran Express, Inc. , 559 F.3d 625, 632 (7th Cir.2009) ("Because of the important function local rules like Rule 56.1 serve in organizing the evidence and identifying disputed facts, we have consistently upheld the district court's discretion to require strict compliance with those rules.") (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether they seek or oppose summary judgment, parties have a right to expect that Local Rule 56.1 will be enforced and that facts not properly presented under the rule will be disregarded. See Curtis v. Costco Wholesale Corp. , 807 F.3d 215, 219 (7th Cir.2015) ("The purpose of Rule 56.1 is to have the litigants present to the district court a clear, concise list of material facts that are central to the summary judgment determination. It is the litigants' duty to clearly identify material facts in dispute and provide the admissible evidence that tends to prove or disprove the proffered fact. A litigant who denies a material fact is required to provide the admissible evidence that supports his denial in a clear, concise, and obvious fashion, for quick reference of the court. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Curtis failed to comply with Rule 56.1 requirements."). Wembi's status as a pro se litigant does not excuse his non-compliance with the rule. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993) ("[W]e have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel."); Maddox v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. , 638 Fed.Appx. 533, 534 (7th Cir.2016) ("[A] district court is entitled to enforce its local rules, even against pro se litigants."); Whitmore v. Boelter Brands , 576 Fed.Appx. 609, 610 (7th Cir.2014) ("[A]lthough we liberally construe the filings of pro se plaintiffs, district courts may require pro se litigants to comply strictly with local rules."); Wilson v. Kautex, Inc. , 371 Fed.Appx. 663, 664 (7th Cir.2010) ("[S]trictly enforcing Local Rule 56.1 was well within the district court's discretion, even though Wilson is a pro se litigant.") (citation omitted); Cady v. Sheahan , 467 F.3d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir.2006) ( "[E]ven pro se litigants must follow rules of civil procedure."). Accordingly, the court accepts as true the facts set forth in Metro's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statements in both cases. See Curtis , 807 F.3d at 218 ("When a responding party's statement fails to dispute the facts set forth in the moving party's statement in the manner dictated by the rule, those facts are deemed admitted for purposes of the motion.") (internal quotation marks omitted); Parra v. Neal , 614 F.3d 635, 636 (7th Cir.2010) ; Rao v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc. , 589 F.3d 389, 393 (7th Cir.2009) ; Cady , 467 F.3d at 1061 ; Raymond v. Ameritech Corp. , 442 F.3d 600, 608 (7th Cir.2006).

That said, the court is mindful that "a nonmovant's failure to ... comply with Local Rule 56.1... does not ... automatically result in judgment for the movant," which "must still demonstrate that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc. , 667 F.3d 877, 884 (7th Cir.2012). The court therefore will recite the facts in Metro's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statements...