Opinion ID: 145518
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Deeming Order.

Text: The local rules of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico require that parties make certain filings in connection with motions for summary judgment. The movant must support his motion with a separate, short, and concise statement of material facts, set forth in numbered paragraphs, as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried. D.P.R.R. 56(b). Each fact asserted in the statement shall be supported by a record citation.... Id. If the target of the motion chooses to oppose it, she must file with her opposition a separate, short, and concise counter-statement. D.P.R.R. 56(c). Th[is] opposing statement shall admit, deny or qualify the facts [supporting the motion for summary judgment] by reference to each numbered paragraph of the moving party's statement of material facts and unless a fact is admitted, shall support each denial or qualification by a record citation.... Id. These statementsboth the movant's and the nonmovant'smust satisfy specific commands: Facts contained in a supporting or opposing statement of material facts, if supported by record citations as required by this rule, shall be deemed admitted unless properly controverted. An assertion of fact set forth in a statement of material facts shall be followed by a citation to the specific page or paragraph of identified record material supporting the assertion. The court may disregard any statement of fact not supported by a specific citation to record material properly considered on summary judgment. The court shall have no independent duty to search or consider any part of the record not specifically referenced in the parties' separate statement of facts. D.P.R.R. 56(e). When Dr. Serrano and the Hospital filed their respective summary judgment motions, each of them filed the required statement. [1] The plaintiffs filed oppositions, admitting some of the declared facts and purporting to dispute or qualify others. The plaintiffs, however, neglected to observe the strictures of the local rule and omitted appropriate citations to the record with respect to their denials and qualifications. Accordingly, the district court deemed admitted the properly supported facts set forth by the defendants in their respective statements. The district court's deeming order is unimpugnable. See Ruiz Rivera v. Riley, 209 F.3d 24, 28 (1st Cir.2000) (explaining that failure to present a statement of disputed facts, embroidered with specific citations to the record, justifies the court's deeming the facts presented in the movant's statement of undisputed facts admitted). Indeed, deeming is precisely the remedy that the local rule envisions for failures of compliance. See D.P.R.R. 56(e). Thus, we treat the facts expressly admitted by the plaintiffs, as well as those deemed admitted by the district court, as uncontested.