Disregard of Local Rule Leads to Loss on Summary Judgment

• Author: Benjamin E. Long
• Pages: 14-15

Disregard of Local Rule Leads

to Loss on Summary Judgment

By Benjamin E. Long, Litigat ion News Associate Editor

Photo Illustra tion by Elmarie Jara © G etty Images

awyers who fail to follow the r ules

may end up losing. A federal appel-

late court held that a d istrict court

did not abuse its discre tion in strik-

ing a party ’s entire statement

of facts in opposition to a su mmary

judgment motion for noncomplian ce

with local ru les, and then entering

summary judg ment against that party.

In the ruli ng, the court reiterated that

litigants are ex pected “to know and

follow local rules of prac tice” and that

failing to do so “can prove fata l.” ABA

Section of Litig ation leaders caution

that even compa ratively minor rule

violations could lead to the sa me end.

Court Strikes Statement of

Facts in Support of Summary

Judgment

In Hinte rberger v. Cit y of

Indianapolis, the plaintiff sued the

City of Indian apolis for faili ng to fol-

low through on promise s to help fund

a development project. The cit y con-

tended that the plai ntiff failed to meet

all the precondit ions for fundin g. As a

result, the plai ntiff was unable to pro-

ceed with the projec t, which caused

him to default on various loa ns and

declare bankruptc y.

The city moved for sum mary judg-

ment. The plaint iff submitted the

required statement of fac ts in support

of its opposition to the city ’s motion.

However, the “statement misrepre -

sented the evidence , contained inac-

curate and mislead ing citations to the

record, and presented i mproper argu-

ments rather than m aterially disput ed

facts.” Since the statem ent “ha[d] all

the appearance of d iligence and com-

petence without a cr umb of their sub-

stance,” the U.S . District Court for the

Southern Distr ict of Indiana struck the

entire statement of fact s for failing to

comply with its local r ules and entered

judgment for the city.

compliance with t heir local rules” and

that a judge’s interpretation of hi s or

her local rules wa s to be given “con-

siderable weight.” It further ex plained

that the purpos e of Local Rule 56-1

was not to make busywork, but to

enable the distri ct court to quickly

isolate which, if a ny, specic facts are

disputed and to identif y the specic

evidence in the rec ord supporting each

party’s position.

The distric t court’s Local Rule

56-1 additionally requir ed the movant

to submit a statement of undi sputed

facts and the opposi ng party to then

respond with a stateme nt of mate-

rial facts in d ispute. It also required

parties to suppor t each asserted

fact “with a citation to a d iscovery

response, a deposit ion, an afd avit,

or other admissible ev idence.” In turn ,

each citation had to “refer to a page

© Getty Image s

Local Rules Intended to Ease

Burden, Not Create Busywork

The U.S. Cou rt of Appeals for the

Seventh Circu it concluded the result

was not too harsh and af rmed the

judgment. It pointed out t hat summar y

judgment “requires the pa rties and

courts ali ke to roll up their sleeves .”

Specically, Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56(c)(1) requires a “party

asserting t hat a fact cannot be or is

generally disputed” to support t hat

position by citing “par ticular pa rts of

materials in th e record” or, conversely,

“showing that the materi als cited do

not establish the abse nce or presence

of genuine dispute, or th at an adverse

party ca nnot produce admissible e vi-

dence to support the fact .”

The appellate cour t also empha-

sized that under long -standing prece-

dent, “district cou rts may require strict

14 | SECTION OF LITIGATION

Published in Litigation News Volume 46, Number 2, Wint er 2021. © 2021 by the Americ an Bar Association. Re produced with per mission. All rights res erved. This infor mation or any portio n thereof may not be c opied or disseminated in any

form or by any means or sto red in an electronic da tabase or retrieval sy stem without the ex press writt en consent of the Amer ican Bar Associatio n.