-1- 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

EDGAR HANSON, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-2551-BN 

§ 

VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA TEXAS, § 

§ 

Defendant. § 

SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULING ORDER 

Plaintiff Edgar Hanson, through counsel, filed a complaint against Defendant 

Volunteers of America Texas, Inc. (“VOA”), alleging that he sustained injuries while 

in custody at VOA’s halfway house. See Dkt. No. 1. VOA answered. See Dkt. No. 4. 

And this lawsuit was referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge to 

conduct all further proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and the parties’ consent. See

Dkt. Nos. 8 & 9. 

VOA has filed a motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. Nos. 24-26. As a 

supplement to the Court’s Initial Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 13], under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 16(b), as amended, see Dkt. No. 19, the Court enters this 

supplemental scheduling order on summary judgment. 

Hanson must file a written response to the motion by May 29, 2024. The 

response must be accompanied by or incorporate a brief, and the response and the 

brief must not together exceed 30 pages in length, excluding any table of contents and 

table of authorities. See N.D. TEX. L. CIV. R. 56.5(b) (as modified). 

The responding parties’ brief must discuss whether the responding parties 

Case 3:22-cv-02551-BN Document 27 Filed 05/01/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID 487
-2- 

agrees with the moving parties’ identification of the live pleadings for each party who 

has appeared in the action and, if not, why not. Any affidavits, depositions, written 

discovery materials, or other summary judgment evidence must be included in a 

separate appendix. The appendix must be numbered sequentially from the first page 

through the last and include an index of all documents contained therein. An envelope 

that contains a non-documentary or oversized exhibit must be numbered as if it were 

a single page. See N.D. TEX. L. CIV. R. 56.6(b). The responding parties must (1) 

bracket in the margin of each document in the appendix or (2) place a text box around 

or (3) otherwise highlight the portions of the document on which the respondents rely, 

and, when citing materials in the record, the responding parties must support each 

assertion by citing each relevant page of its own or another party’s appendix.

Additionally, except to the extent any requirement is modified herein, the 

response and brief must comply with the requirements of Local Civil Rules 56.4(a)-

(c), 56.5(a), 56.5(c), and 56.6(a)-(b). 

A motion for continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) must be 

filed separately and may not be included in the response to the motion for summary 

judgment, brief in support thereof, or any other document. 

VOA may file a reply brief, but no additional evidence, by June 13, 2024. The 

reply must not exceed 15 pages in length. See N.D. TEX. L. CIV. R. 56.5(b) (as 

modified). 

No supplemental pleadings, briefs, or summary judgment evidence or other 

documents may be filed in connection with the motion for summary judgment or 

Case 3:22-cv-02551-BN Document 27 Filed 05/01/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID 488
-3- 

response thereto without leave of court. See N.D. TEX. L. CIV. R. 56.7. 

“A party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot 

be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(2). 

“There is no need to make a separate motion to strike.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56 advisory 

committee's note to 2010 amendments; accord Adams v. Untied Assoc. of Journeymen 

& Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus. of the U.S. & Canada, AFLCIO, Local 198, Civ. A. No. 98-400-JWD-RLB, 2020 WL 1856191, at * (M.D. La. Apr. 

13, 2020) (“For approximately the past nine years, recommended federal practices 

have entailed considering objections to evidence offered in support of or in opposition 

to motions for summary judgment in conjunction with the actual motion for summary 

judgment as opposed to a separate motion to strike, similar to the practice of objecting 

to evidentiary offerings at trial.”). 

The Court will not consider a separate motion to strike evidence, fact 

statements, or briefing offered in support of or in opposition to summary judgment. 

The Court will summarily deny without prejudice any motion to strike filed in 

violation of these directions. 

The parties instead must include any objections to evidence, fact statements, 

or briefing offered in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment 

within their briefs (including reply briefs) in support of or in opposition to a motion 

for summary judgment. If a party includes objections in a response in opposition to a 

motion for summary judgment, any response to the objections must be included in 

the reply brief in support of the motion for summary judgment, and no reply in 

Case 3:22-cv-02551-BN Document 27 Filed 05/01/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID 489
-4- 

support of the objections is permitted. If a party includes objections in a reply brief in 

support of a motion for summary judgment, any response to the objections must be 

made in a separate brief that does not exceed 10 pages in length, excluding any table 

of contents and table of authorities, and that must be filed by no later than 14 days 

after the date of filing of the reply brief in support of a motion for summary judgment, 

and no reply in support of the objections is permitted. 

 The deadlines set forth in this order will not be modified except on written 

motion for good cause shown. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b). Further, the Court strongly 

discourages any request to extend either of these deadlines through a motion that is 

filed within three business days of the existing deadline and will grant any such 

motion only on a showing in the written motion of extraordinary circumstances. 

 The Court intends to rule on the motion based on the parties’ written 

submissions, without hearing oral argument. See N.D. TEX. L. CIV. R. 7.1(g) (“Unless 

otherwise directed by the presiding judge, oral argument on a motion will not be 

held.”). But the Court, in its discretion or on the request of any party, may schedule 

oral argument prior to ruling on the motion. Any party who desires oral argument 

must file a written request with the Court by June 13, 2024. 

 With regard to possible oral argument, the undersigned notes a trend today in 

which fewer cases go to trial and in which there are generally fewer speaking or 

“stand-up” opportunities in court, particularly for junior lawyers (that is, lawyers 

practicing for less than seven years). The undersigned strongly encourages litigants 

to be mindful of opportunities for junior lawyers to conduct hearings or oral argument 

Case 3:22-cv-02551-BN Document 27 Filed 05/01/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID 490
-5- 

before the Court, particularly hearings or oral arguments as to which the junior 

lawyer drafted or contributed significantly to the underlying motion or response. In 

those instances in which the undersigned is inclined to rule on the papers, a 

representation that the oral argument would be handled by a junior lawyer – or by a 

lawyer who has more than seven years in practice but who has had less than five 

speaking appearances in any federal court – will weigh in favor of holding oral 

argument. The undersigned understands that there may be circumstances in which 

having a junior lawyer handle a hearing or oral argument might not be appropriate 

– such as where no junior lawyers were involved in drafting the motion or response 

or where the motion might be dispositive in a “bet-the-company” type case. Even so, 

the undersigned believes it is crucial to provide substantive speaking opportunities 

to junior or other less experienced lawyers and that the benefits of doing so will accrue 

to junior lawyers, to clients, and to the profession generally. Thus, the undersigned 

encourages all lawyers practicing before the Court to keep this goal in mind. 

 Additionally, the undersigned permits a party’s or parties’ lawyers’ splitting 

an oral argument and encourages, in appropriate cases, doing so with a more junior 

attorney who may have spent the most hours on the briefing. 

 If, while the motion is pending, the parties are having serious discussions that 

might make it unnecessary for the Court to rule on the motion, the parties must 

immediately advise Shakira Todd, at (214) 753-2165, that such discussions are 

ongoing. 

Any questions concerning the requirements of this order may be directed to 

Case 3:22-cv-02551-BN Document 27 Filed 05/01/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID 491
-6- 

Ms. Todd. Attorneys and parties should not contact Ms. Todd or the Court’s chambers 

to ask when a ruling on a motion can be expected. 

Questions concerning electronic filing procedures should be directed to the 

ECF Help Desk at (866) 243-2866. 

 Please note that deadlines in this order are for filing or delivery and are not 

mailing dates. 

The failure to comply with any part of this order may result in the imposition 

of sanctions, see FED. R. CIV. P. 16(f), and may lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

SO ORDERED. 

DATE: May 1, 2024 

 _________________________________________ 

 DAVID L. HORAN 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-02551-BN Document 27 Filed 05/01/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID 492