United States District Court, D. Connecticut
JOHN L. CONLEY, Plaintiff,
OFFICER BRYSGEL and OFFICER BLACK, Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND AMENDED
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
August 22, 2018, John L. Conley (“Plaintiff”)
filed a one-page motion for summary judgment, accompanied by
a nine-page memorandum and one-page list of exhibits.
See Motion for Summary Judgment, dated Aug. 22,
2018, ECF No. 44.
Officers Brysgel and Black (“Defendants”) argue
that the motion is untimely, as the Court set a deadline of
April 9, 2018 for the filing of any dispositive motions, and
no extensions of time to file such a motion have been sought
or granted. Objection, dated Aug. 28, 2018, ECF No. 45.
Defendants also argue that it fails to conform to the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) and
Local Civil Rule 56(a)(1). Id. The Court agrees with
motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the moving
party to establish that there are no genuine issues of
material fact in dispute and that it is “entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In
this District, a motion for summary judgment must be
accompanied by a Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 56(a)(1)
(“A party moving for summary judgment shall file and
serve with the motion and supporting memorandum a document
entitled ‘Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts,' which sets forth, in separately numbered
paragraphs meeting the requirements of Local Rule 56(a)3, a
concise statement of each material fact as to which the
moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be
District further requires that each statement of material
fact in the Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement “be followed
by a specific citation to (1) the affidavit of a witness
competent to testify as to the facts at trial, or (2) other
evidence that would be admissible at trial.” D. Conn.
L. Civ. R. 56(a)(3). Finally, the District requires that
“[t]he affidavits, deposition testimony, responses to
discovery requests, or other documents containing such
evidence” be filed and served with the Local Rule
56(a)(1) Statement. Id.
se parties and represented parties alike must comply
with this District's requirements for motions for summary
judgment; if they do not, the district court may, in its
discretion, deny their motion or impose other sanctions.
See Tross v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co., 928 F.Supp.2d
498, 503 (D. Conn. 2013) (Hall, J.) (“In this Circuit,
a movant's failure to comply with a district court's
relevant local rules on a motion for summary judgment
permits, but does not require, a court to dispose of that
motion.”) (citing Tota v. Bentley, 379
Fed.Appx. 31, 32-33 (2d Cir. 2010)); see also D.
Conn. L. Civ. R. 56(a)(3) (“A party's failure to
provide specific citations to evidence in the record as
required by this Local Rule may result in . . . the Court
imposing sanctions, including, when the movant fails to
comply, an order denying the motion for summary judgment . .
. .”). Courts in this District generally look at
whether the motion, despite technical non-compliance,
substantially complies such that it would be fair to decide
the motion on the merits. See, e.g., Bunting v.
Kellogg's Corp., No. 3:14-cv-621 (VAB), 2016 WL
659661, at *1-2 (D. Conn. Feb. 18, 2016) (“In this
case, the Court cannot fairly and completely adjudicate
summary judgment in this matter without full compliance with
the District of Connecticut's Local Rules. Without a
Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement, the Court cannot fairly
determine the undisputed facts in this case. Such a
determination is essential to evaluating a summary judgment
motion.”); Tross, 928 F.Supp.2d at 503-04
(“In this case, this court does not agree that the
defendants have substantially complied with the Local Rules.
The defendants are the ones who moved for summary judgment,
and yet they failed to provide the required statement in any
of their motion papers . . . . The fact that the defendants
have provided citations and stated facts in their moving
papers does not satisfy [Local Rule 56(a)(1)]. For example,
it does not indicate to this court, or to the Trosses,
exactly which statements the defendants intended to
constitute their Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement. If this court
were to deem the statements in the defendants' Motion a
substitute for their Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement, this would
require the Trosses to mine the defendants' papers and
identify statements to admit or deny for purposes of their
Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement . . . . This court refuses to
burden the Trosses because of the defendants' failure to
comply with the Local Rules . . . . ”).
Conley did not file a Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement with his
motion, nor did he file copies of any of the exhibits in
support of his motion. Moreover, Mr. Conley's motion
cannot be said to have substantially complied with the Rule
because it fails to identify specifically what statements Mr.
Conley believes are material facts that are not in dispute.
Requiring Defendants to answer this motion in a full
opposition brief in compliance with the Local Rules would
unfairly shift the burden of summary judgment-which is on the
moving party, Mr. Conley-onto Defendants. In addition, the
Court itself cannot determine the undisputed material facts
relevant to deciding this motion.
Mr. Conley's motion for summary judgment is
resolve this case expeditiously, the Court hereby amends the
parties' schedule as follows:
• By November 2, 2018, Defendants are
directed to file a motion to amend the case caption to
reflect Defendants' full names.
• The Court will convene a telephonic status conference
on November 15, 2018 at 2:30 p.m. to
determine if the parties wish to be referred to a Magistrate
Judge to discuss settlement and, if not, to determine a
schedule for moving this case forward. Once all counsel and
Mr. Conley are on the line, please call Chambers at (203)