Filed: Apr. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 19, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DALE A. KIMBALL , District Judge . This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Nicholas J. Robert's Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 1 Roberts argues in the motion: (1) that the motion is over length because the Defendant failed to include text images in its certified word count; and (2) that the Defendant is factually wrong in stating that Roberts held a specialist position that had a non-merit classification. The Plaintiff a
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DALE A. KIMBALL , District Judge . This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Nicholas J. Robert's Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 1 Roberts argues in the motion: (1) that the motion is over length because the Defendant failed to include text images in its certified word count; and (2) that the Defendant is factually wrong in stating that Roberts held a specialist position that had a non-merit classification. The Plaintiff al..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DALE A. KIMBALL, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Nicholas J. Robert's Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.1 Roberts argues in the motion: (1) that the motion is over length because the Defendant failed to include text images in its certified word count; and (2) that the Defendant is factually wrong in stating that Roberts held a specialist position that had a non-merit classification. The Plaintiff also filed a motion to stay briefing on the motion for partial summary judgment pending a decision on the motion to strike.
Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is over length because it includes text images. The Defendant asserts that its motion contains only 9,388 words and that text images were only included for the convenience of the court. The majority of the text images are in the Defendants' section pertaining to undisputed facts. The court finds that these images were included for convenience and therefore DENIES Plaintiff's motion to strike the motion for partial summary judgment as over length.
The Plaintiff further argues that the Defendants mischaracterize Robert's position as being classified as specialist rather than merit. At the heart of the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is the factual question of whether Robert's position is classified as merit. In fact, the court ordered the parties to engage in limited discovery to determine the proper classification of Robert's position. See Dkt. No. 23. The proper classification of Robert's position is a factual question that will be decided, if possible, in the motion for summary judgment. The court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's motion to strike the motion for partial summary.
The Plaintiff also filed a motion to stay the briefing on the motion for partial summary judgment until the court rules on the motion to strike. The court DENIES to stay the briefing on the motion for partial summary judgment. Alternatively, Plaintiff may seek a reasonable extension of time, if needed, to respond to the motion.
Additionally, the Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to File a Surreply in Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. The court finds that a surreply is not necessary and therefore DENIES leave to file a surreply. (Dkt. No. 48).
For the following reasons, the Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 41), the Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 47), and the Motion for Leave to File a Surreply (Dkt. No. 48) are DENIED in their entirety.
