From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldstick v. Hartford Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 19, 2002
00 Civ. 8577 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2002)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added “argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to ‘spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make”

Summary of this case from Burrell v. Durkin
See 25 Summaries

Opinion

00 Civ. 8577 (LAK)

August 19, 2002

ORDER

LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge

Defendants move to strike plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, submitted in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, on the ground that it fails to comply with Local Civ.R. 56.1 in that it goes beyond admitting or denying that the propositions of fact set forth in defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement in fact are undisputed and contains a great deal of extraneous, argumentative material, much allegedly based on inadmissible evidence.

"A proper 56.1 statement submitted by a non-movant should consist of a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the movant's 56.1 statement, much like an answer to a complaint. If the non-movant asserts that a fact claimed by the movant to be undisputed is actually in dispute, the non-movant must cite evidence on the record to support its contention. It is permissible for the non-movant to provide a separate statement, apart from this paragraph-by-paragraph response, in which it lists other facts it claims to be in dispute. However, this separate statement is not a substitute for the paragraph-by-paragraph response. The non-movant, particularly if represented by counsel, should not leave it to the Court to cull from this separate statement the pieces of evidence which would support the contentions of the non-movant asserted in its paragraph-by-paragraph response without citation.
"Rule 56.1 statements are not argument. They should contain factual assertions, with citation to the record. They should not contain conclusions, and they should be neither the source nor the result of `cut-and-paste' efforts with the memorandum of law. A rule 56.1 statement that contains the same turns of phrase, if not the identical whole paragraphs, as the memorandum of law is improper." Rodriguez v. Schneider, No. 95 Civ. 4083 (RPP), 1999 WL 1102760, *1 n. 3 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 1999).

The plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement here does not comply with the rule. While in most cases it does admit or deny defendants' descriptions of the allegedly uncontested facts on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, it adds argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to "spin" the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make. In consequence, the response to the 84 number assertions set forth in defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement is 41 pages long and, whether so intended or not, a manifest evasion of the page limitation on plaintiff's memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, defendants' motion is granted to the extent that so much of plaintiff's responses as consists of anything more than (a) the admission or denial of the assertions set forth in defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement and the citations to the record, and (b) the section headed "additional facts" is stricken. It is denied in all other respects.

SO ORDERED.

Summaries of

Goldstick v. Hartford Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Aug 19, 2002
00 Civ. 8577 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2002)

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added “argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to ‘spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make”

Summary of this case from Burrell v. Durkin

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added “argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to ‘spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make”

Summary of this case from Garcia v. Anderson

striking plaintiffs Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added “argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to ‘spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make”

Summary of this case from Checksfield v. Internal Revenue Serv.

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added “argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to ‘spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make”

Summary of this case from Doe v. Hamilton Coll.

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added “argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to ‘spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make”

Summary of this case from Bradshaw v. Uhler

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added “argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to ‘spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make”

Summary of this case from Mitchell v. Annucci

striking plaintiffs Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to 'spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Upstate Jobs Party v. Kosinski

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to ‘spin’ the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Upstate Jobs Party v. Kosinski

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to 'spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Kane v. City of Ithaca

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to 'spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Martineau v. Newell

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to 'spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Niedziejko v. Del. & Hudson Ry. Co.

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to 'spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Stamm v. Onondaga Cnty.

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to ‘spin’ the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Yennard v. Boces

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to 'spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Snyder v. Town of Potsdam

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to 'spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Hogan v. Lewis Cnty.

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to 'spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from James v. Van Blarcum

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to 'spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Blundell v. Nihon Kohden Am.

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to 'spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Siddiqua v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to ‘spin’ the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Estate of D.B. v. Thousand Islands Cent. Sch. Dist.

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to 'spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Mahar v. Warren Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to 'spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Lomonoco v. Saint Anne Inst.

striking argumentative sections but retaining any admissions or denials and citations to the record

Summary of this case from Obeid v. La Mack

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to 'spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Prindle v. City of Norwich

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to ‘spin’ the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Levy v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation

striking plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, in part, because plaintiff added "argumentative and often lengthy narrative in almost every case the object of which is to 'spin' the impact of the admissions plaintiff has been compelled to make"

Summary of this case from Brooking v. Mattox
Case details for

Goldstick v. Hartford Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DIANE F. GOLDSTICK, Plaintiff, v. THE HARTFORD, INC., et ano., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Aug 19, 2002

Citations

00 Civ. 8577 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2002)

Citing Cases

Alex v. Gen. Elec. Co.

Lanoue's Rule 7.1 Statement, supporting the above-listed factual assertion with an accurate record citation]…

Yennard v. Boces

SeeMaioriello v. New York State Office for People With Developmental Disabilities , 272 F.Supp.3d 307, 311…

71 Citing Cases