Opinion ID: 2740265
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dispute Regarding the Factual Standard

Text: Tramp first claims that the district court erred in failing to consider her submitted facts; what she labeled as additional material facts in her brief opposing summary judgment. Tramp alleges, without reference to specific legal or statutory authority, that even though local rule 56.1(b)(1) states that [p]roperly referenced material facts in the movant's statement are considered admitted unless controverted in the opposing party's response, Neb. Civ. R. 56.1(b)(1), the same is true for any additional facts alleged by the non-moving party. Tramp deduces that because this court views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party in a summary judgment determination, any additional factual allegations made by that non-moving party cannot be disputed–that if the non-moving party includes proper references to the submitted record, her facts are to be deemed admitted and viewed in her favor. At the outset, Tramp fails to acknowledge that the rules clearly require that she respond in kind, and in a specific fashion, to the statement of undisputed facts asserted by Associated Underwriters in their motion for summary judgment. Nebraska's rule concerning summary judgment procedure places clear requirements on the moving and opposing parties. The moving party, for example, must include in the brief in support of the summary judgment motion a separate statement of -7- material facts, that consist[s] of short numbered paragraphs, each containing pinpoint references to affidavits, pleadings, discovery responses, deposition testimony (by page and line), or other materials that support the material facts stated in the paragraph. Neb. Civ. R. 56.1(a)(1) & (2). Associated Underwriters complied with this rule. The rules then state that, as the opposing party, Tramp must: include in [her] brief a concise response to the moving party's statement of material facts. Each material fact in the response must be set forth in a separate numbered paragraph, must include pinpoint references to affidavits, pleadings, discovery responses, deposition testimony (by page and line), or other materials upon which [Tramp] relies, and, if applicable, must state the number of the paragraph in the movant's statement of material facts that is disputed. Properly referenced material facts in the movant's statement are considered admitted unless controverted in the opposing party's response. Neb. Civ. P. 56.1(b)(1). Tramp's inclusion of additional material facts in her opposing brief did not comply with these requirements. Although numbered and referenced with pinpoint references, nowhere in Tramp's fact section does she dispute any undisputed fact advanced by Associated Underwriters. Accordingly, the district court properly considered the movant's material facts admitted. Possibly, Tramp means to argue that all of her additional facts were, indeed, additional, and that she, in fact, had no dispute as to the facts set out by Associated Underwriters so there was no need to reference any disputed paragraphs; that she truly included additional facts that the district court wholly failed to consider. Yet, there are many paragraphs in Tramp's additional material facts portion of her brief that directly seek to refute those advanced by Associated Underwriters. Per the local rules, the additional facts, when possible, should have referenced the exact paragraph -8- of the undisputed facts at issue so as to avoid the very problem we now face–that is, discerning which of Tramp's additional facts are truly additional and which respond to facts advanced by Associated Underwriters, thus placing them in dispute. Nw. Bank & Trust Co. v. First Ill. Nat'l Bank, 354 F.3d 721, 725 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting that the concision and specificity required by [local rules] seek to aid the district court in passing upon a motion for summary judgment, reflecting the aphorism that it is the parties who know the case better than the judge). District courts have discretion to enforce local rules and we do not fault the district court for doing so in this case. Reasonover v. St. Louis Cnty., Mo., 447 F.3d 569, 579 (8th Cir. 2006). At the same time, however, it is apparent from the district court's order that the court exercised lenity, as it can, and considered facts contained in Tramp's brief in opposition to Associated Underwriters motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court did not ignore Tramp's facts, it just did not spend any time parsing through them to discern which were included to refute facts advanced by Associated Underwriters. Importantly, the court references Tramp's filing, and many facts therein, throughout its analysis. For example, the court analyzed the emails from Gurbacki that Tramp argues bolsters her discrimination claims in this matter. We hold the district court committed no abuse of discretion and we likewise exercise lenity in similar fashion, reviewing facts presented by Tramp as relevant to our analysis herein.