UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

BRIAN BONNER, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No.: 3:06-cv-00715-MHT 

 ) 

NORINCO a/k/a ) 

CHINA NORTH INDUSTRIES CORP. ) 

et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANT CHINA NORTH INDUSTRIES CORPORATION’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF

 Defendant China North Industries Corporation (“Norinco”) hereby moves the 

Court for leave to file a reply brief to Plaintiff’s Memorandum Brief in Opposition to 

China North Industries Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment. As grounds for 

this motion, Norinco states as follows: 

1. On February 14, 2008, Norinco filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, 

along with a supporting brief and evidentiary submission, based on (1) the plaintiff’s 

negligence in failing to engage the subject shotgun’s safety and in placing his right hand 

over the muzzle of the loaded, cocked gun; and (2) the plaintiff’s lack of evidentiary 

support for his theory of causation. 

2. On February 19, 2008, the Court entered an Order setting Norinco’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment for submission, without oral argument, on March 6, 

2008, with any opposing brief and evidentiary materials due by that date. The Court’s 

Order did not provide for the filing of any reply by Norinco. 

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 84 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 1 of 3
 2

3. On March 6, 2008, the plaintiff submitted his opposition to Norinco’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment. In his opposition brief, the plaintiff has attempted to 

create a dispute of fact with “facts” that are based on speculation or on deposition 

testimony that the plaintiff ultimately recanted. The plaintiff has also changed his 

allegation that the subject shotgun “fell apart” to an allegation that he sensed the barrel 

sliding off while the gun was pointing upward — an allegation that defies the laws of 

gravity. 

4. Norinco wishes to have an opportunity to identify more specifically the 

deficiencies of the plaintiff’s opposition brief to demonstrate that there is no dispute of 

material fact and that summary judgment is appropriate. 

 For the foregoing reasons, Norinco respectfully requests leave to file a reply brief 

to Plaintiff’s Memorandum Brief in Opposition to China North Industries Corporation’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ James C. Barton, Jr. 

James C. Barton, Jr. (BAR014) 

Bar Number: ASB-0237-B51J 

Email: jbartonjr@johnstonbarton.com 

s/ Alan D. Mathis 

Alan D. Mathis (MAT052) 

Bar Number: ASB-8922-A59M 

Email: adm@johnstonbarton.com 

Attorneys for defendant 

China North Industries Corporation 

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 84 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 2 of 3
 3

JOHNSTON BARTON PROCTOR & ROSE LLP 

Colonial Brookwood Center 

569 Brookwood Village, Suite 901 

Birmingham, Alabama 35209 

(205) 458-9400 

(205) 458-9500 (FAX) 

OF COUNSEL 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the above and foregoing with the Clerk 

of the Court on March 6, 2008, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification 

of such filing to the following: 

 

David J. Hodge, Esq. 

PITTMAN, DUTTON, KIRBY & HELLUMS, P.C. 

2001 Park Place North 

1100 Park Place Tower 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

Nick Wooten, Esq. 

WOOTEN & CARLTON, P.C. 

P.O. Drawer 290 

Lafayette, Alabama 36862 

Todd M. Higey, Esq. 

 RICHARDSONCLEMENT, P.C. 

 200 Cahaba Park Circle 

 Suite 125 

 Birmingham, Alabama 35242 

 

 

 s/ Alan D. Mathis 

 Of Counsel 

W0635972.DOC 

Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 84 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 3 of 3