1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Charles D. Young,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-13679

Karl Petrich, et al., Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER STRIKING BRIEFS AND ORDERING BRIEFING IN COMPLIANCE WITH

LOCAL RULES AND THIS COURT’S PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Plaintiff filed this § 1983 action against the following three Defendants on September 16,

2009: 1) Karl Petrich (“Petrich”), individually and in his official capacity as Flint Police Officer;

2) Randolph Tolbert (“Tolbert”), individually and in his official capacity as Flint Police Officer;

and 3) the City of Flint (“The City”). Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on October 14,

2009.

Following the close of discovery, each of the three Defendants filed a separate Motion

for Summary Judgment, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).

This Court’s written practice guidelines for motions for summary judgment are included

in the Scheduling Order in this matter (Docket Entry No. 18 at 1-3) and provide, in pertinent

part, that:

a. The moving party’s papers shall include a separate document entitled

Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute. The statement shall list in separately

numbered paragraphs concise statements of each undisputed material fact,

supported by appropriate citations to the record. . .
2

b. In response, the opposing party shall file a separate document entitled

Counter-Statement of Disputed Facts. The counter-statement shall list in

separately numbered paragraphs following the order or the movant’s statement,

whether each of the facts asserted by the moving party is admitted or denied and

shall also be supported by appropriate citations to the record. The CounterStatement shall also include, in a separate section, a list of each issue of material

fact as to which it is contended there is a genuine issue for trial.

c. All material facts as set forth in the Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute

shall be deemed admitted unless controverted in the Counter-Statement of

Disputed Facts.

Defendant Petrich filed his Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 25) on

June 9, 2010. In compliance with this Court’s practice guidelines, Defendant Petrich also filed a

“Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute” on June 9, 2010 (Docket Entry No. 26).

Defendant Tolbert filed his Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 24) on

June 9, 2010. In compliance with this Court’s practice guidelines, Defendant Tolbert also filed a

“Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute” (Docket Entry No. 27).

The City filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on June 10, 2010 (Docket Entry No.

28). In compliance with this Court’s practice guidelines, the City also filed a “Statement of

Material Facts Not in Dispute” (Docket Entry No. 29).

Plaintiff filed a combined response brief, purportedly responding to all three motions. 

Plaintiff’s response brief contains numerous statements of fact that include no citations to the

record. Moreover, Plaintiff did not comply with this Court’s practice guidelines in that he did

not respond to any of the Defendant’s Statements of Material Facts Not in Dispute.

Following Plaintiff’s response, the Defendants filed reply briefs. In violation of the

Local Rules, those reply briefs are in excess of five pages.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Response Brief (Docket Entry
3

No. 32) is STRICKEN from the record for failure to comply with the Local Rules and this

Court’s practice guidelines. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Plaintiff shall file:

1) A written response to Defendant Petrich’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

along with a Counter-Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute that

complies with this Court’s practice guidelines;

2) A written response to Defendant Tolbert’s Motion for Summary

Judgment, along with a Counter-Statement of Material Facts Not in

Dispute that complies with this Court’s practice guidelines; and

3) A written response to the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment, along

with a Counter-Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute that complies

with this Court’s practice guidelines.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Reply Briefs (Docket Entries No. 36 &

37) are hereby STRICKEN from the record. Each Defendant may file a Reply Brief of no more

than five (5) pages within fourteen (14) days of Plaintiff’s Response Brief.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing set for August 19, 2010 is adjourned to

October 14, 2010 at 3:00 p.m., and that the final final pretrial conference is adjourned without

date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: August 10, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

August 10, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager