Hamilton v. Core-Mark International, Inc., 5:16-cv-356-DPM. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20180614690
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . 1. Hamilton's affidavit, N o 43, is an improvement because it seems to track Core-Mark's Local Rule 56.1 statement paragraph by paragraph. But Hamilton's affidavit doesn't comply fully with the Court's recent detailed Order, N o 40. Hamilton must repeat each fact asserted by Core-Mark before responding to each one. And Hamilton must include a record citation for each material fact that he disputes. 2. Hamilton's compliant respondi
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . 1. Hamilton's affidavit, N o 43, is an improvement because it seems to track Core-Mark's Local Rule 56.1 statement paragraph by paragraph. But Hamilton's affidavit doesn't comply fully with the Court's recent detailed Order, N o 40. Hamilton must repeat each fact asserted by Core-Mark before responding to each one. And Hamilton must include a record citation for each material fact that he disputes. 2. Hamilton's compliant respondin..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, JR., District Judge.
1. Hamilton's affidavit, No 43, is an improvement because it seems to track Core-Mark's Local Rule 56.1 statement paragraph by paragraph. But Hamilton's affidavit doesn't comply fully with the Court's recent detailed Order, No 40. Hamilton must repeat each fact asserted by Core-Mark before responding to each one. And Hamilton must include a record citation for each material fact that he disputes.
2. Hamilton's compliant responding Local Rule 56.1 statement is due by 29 June 2018.
3. Core-Mark's time to file a second reply brief is extended until fourteen days after Hamilton files his compliant responding statement.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
