UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID D. WILBON, RICO M. WILBON, )

and GEORGE J. SMITH, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) No. 12 CV 1132

)

JOSEPH M. PLOVANICH, et al., ) Hon. Marvin E. Aspen

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge:

Presently before us are two motions. The first is Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’

memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary judgment for exceeding the page

number limit and the number of statement of facts allowed, or in the alternative, to extend the time in

which a response may be filed by Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 196.) The second is Plaintiffs’ motion for

order extending deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and

allowing Plaintiffs to file a memorandum in excess of 15 pages and file more than 40 statements of

additional facts. (Dkt. No. 210.)

Given the confusing procedural history in this case, we first review the filings. On August

22, 2013, Defendants filed an unopposed motion for leave to file in excess of the local rule’s 15-page

limit for their memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary judgment and for leave to

file in excess of 80 facts for their 56.1 statements of fact in support of their motion for summary

judgment. (Dkt. No. 167.) On August 26, 2013, we granted Defendants’ motion. (Dkt. No. 170.) 

1
Accordingly, Defendants filed their 35-page memorandum of law (Dkt. No. 191) and 118 statements

of fact (Dkt. No. 192) on November 20, 2013. The next day, Plaintiffs filed their motion to strike

Defendants’ memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary judgment for exceeding the

page number limit and the number of statement of facts allowed or in the alternative, to extend the

time in which a response may be filed by Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 196.) We then issued an order

instructing Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion to strike and for Plaintiffs to reply. (Dkt. No.

199.) Defendants filed their response on December 4, 2013 (Dkt. No. 208), and Plaintiffs filed their

reply on December 6, 2013 (Dkt. No. 209). In their reply, Plaintiffs acknowledged that they failed to

recall that we had already granted Defendants’ unopposed motion to file in excess of the page limit

and number of facts allowed. (Dkt. No. 209.)

On December 3, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a 22-page memorandum of law in support of their cross

motion for summary judgment in excess of the rule’s page limit (Dkt. No. 203) with our permission 

(Dkt. No. 207). Plaintiffs also filed 79 statements of facts. (Dkt. No. 204.)

We first address Plaintiffs’ motion to strike. As Plaintiffs’ acknowledged, we have already

granted Defendants’ motion to file a memorandum and statements of fact in excess of the local rule’s

limits. We therefore deny Plaintiffs’ motion to strike. We grant, however, Plaintiffs’ request for an

extension of time to file their response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, in light of

Plaintiffs counsel’s medical issue, which requires her to be on medical leave until January 6, 2014. 

Plaintiffs have until February 3, 2014 to complete their response.

Next, we address Plaintiffs’ second motion. Having just granted Plaintiffs’ motion for

extension of time, we address only Plaintiffs’ motion to file a 35-page memorandum of law, and 80

statements of additional facts. Our understanding of Plaintiffs’ request to file a 35-page

memorandum is that they are seeking permission to file a 35-page response to Defendants’ motion for

2
summary judgment. We therefore grant Plaintiffs’ motion to file a 35-page response. We also grant

Plaintiffs’ request to file 80 statements of additional facts, in light of Defendants’ 80 statements of

fact.

In sum, we deny Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ memorandum, but grant their motion

for an extension of time to file their response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We

also grant Plaintiffs’ request to filed a 35-page response to Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment and Plaintiffs’ request to file 80 statements of additional facts.

The briefing schedule previously set in this Court’s minute order of November 22, 2013 (Dkt.

No. 200) is vacated. Our final briefing schedule is as follows. Plaintiffs’ response, which may not

exceed 35 pages, is to be filed by February 3, 2014. Defendants have two weeks, until February 17,

to file their reply, which may not exceed ten pages.

The briefing schedule with regard to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment will be the

same. Since Plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment twelve days after Defendants’

motion, Defendants have until February 17 to file their response, which may not exceed 22 pages. 

Lastly, Plaintiffs have until March 3 to file their reply, which may not exceed ten pages.

The status has been reset to June 26, 2014. It is so ordered.

 

____________________________________

Marvin E. Aspen

United States District Judge

Dated: Chicago, Illinois

December 16, 2013

3