1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

TANISHA A. SIMMONS, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 2:12-cv-39 

 ) 

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH ) 

AMERICA CORP., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the court on the Motion for Leave to Submit Replacement Brief in 

Support of Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 53] filed by the defendant, Philips Electronics 

Corp., on April 2, 2014. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

 Philips filed its motion for summary judgment and supporting memorandum on March 6, 

2014. Its supporting memorandum totaled 39 pages, 12 of which contained only facts. On 

March 31, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a response to the motion for summary judgment and a motion 

to strike. In their motion to strike, the plaintiffs cite four reasons for requesting that the court 

strike Philips’ motion for summary judgment, one of which is that its brief exceeds the 25-page 

limit set out by Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 7-1(e)(1). Philips responded by filing 

the present motion seeking leave to file an amended brief. Philips explained that in its amended 

brief it moved the statement of material facts to the appendix, as permitted under Local Rule 56-

1(a), removed Section A, which addressed whether the accident was the result of a 

manufacturing defect because the plaintiffs confirmed that they were not alleging as much, and 

re-lettered their brief. 
2 

 The plaintiffs responded that Philips should not be permitted to amend its brief because it 

would complicate the work of the court and the parties and would require additional time. The 

court disagrees. Philips stated that it would not oppose a request by the plaintiffs to submit an 

amended response brief if the plaintiffs wanted additional time to respond. However, the 

plaintiffs made no such request, and the court does not find that an amended response is 

necessary under the circumstances. Philips did not change the substance of its memorandum. It 

reconfigured its brief so that it complied with the page limit by moving the facts to the appendix 

as permitted by Local Rule 56-1, removing one argument, and re-lettering. Because the changes 

were minimal and the plaintiffs did not request to file an amended response, nor were any new 

arguments presented that require a response, the court does not find it necessary to re-set the 

briefing schedule. Moreover, the plaintiffs already have filed a response, and Philips has filed its 

reply. Because additional briefs and time will not be necessary, the risk that the amendment will 

create additional work and time has been eliminated. 

 In addition, Philips sought leave to file its amended brief to comply with Local Rule 7-1 

as a response to the plaintiffs’ motion to strike its original memorandum for exceeding the page 

limit. It would be a waste of judicial resources to permit a case to go to trial that could have been 

resolved on a motion for summary judgment. For these reasons, the court GRANTS Philips’ 

motion. 

 ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2014 

/s/ Andrew P. Rodovich 

United States Magistrate Judge