Opinion ID: 786237
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ammons' Responses to Aramark's Statement of Undisputed Facts

Text: 24 The second issue on appeal concerns the Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1(a). This rule requires a party moving for summary judgment to include with that motion a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue and that entitle the moving party to a judgment as a matter of law. N.D. Ill. R. 56.1(a). This statement must be organized by numbered paragraphs. Id. The party opposing the motion must respond to this statement of facts with: 25 (A) a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement, including, in the case of any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon, and 26 (B) a statement, consisting of short numbered paragraphs, of any additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment, including references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon. 27 N.D. Ill. R. 56.1(b). The rule also provides that [a]ll material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of the opposing party. Id. 28 Aramark moved to strike nearly half of Ammons' 200 responses to Aramark's statement of facts. The district court granted the motion, finding that Ammons' responses were defective for an assortment of reasons. First, the district court found that a large number (approximately 80) of Ammons' denials of factual statements by Aramark failed to cite facts supporting the denial or impermissibly added new, unrelated facts. Second, the district court found that four of Ammons' responses failed to cite any part of the record in support of the denial. Third, the district court found that two responses were improper because the responses cited an entire deposition transcript rather than specific page references. Finally, the district court determined that six of the responses were improper because Ammons failed to admit or deny Aramark's allegations. 29 This court reviews the decision of a district court concerning compliance with local rules, such as Rule 56.1, for an abuse of discretion. Borcky v. Maytag Corp., 248 F.3d 691, 697 (7th Cir.2001). We have also repeatedly held that a district court is entitled to expect strict compliance with Rule 56.1. Bordelon v. Chicago School Reform Bd. of Trustees, 233 F.3d 524, 527 (7th Cir.2000) (Given their importance, we have consistently and repeatedly upheld a district court's discretion to require strict compliance with its local rules governing summary judgment.); Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir.1994) (collecting cases). Thus, as an initial matter, Ammons' argument that the district court erred in striking his responses because he substantially complied with Rule 56.1 is inapt. Substantial compliance is not strict compliance. 30 Having reviewed the responses at issue, we do not believe the district court abused its discretion when it struck the responses. Rule 56.1 envisions a separate statement of additional facts. In this case, several of Ammons' responses to Aramark's allegations admit to the allegation but then add other additional facts. These facts should have been included in a separate statement. They were not, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the responses. 31 In addition, where a non-moving party denies a factual allegation by the party moving for summary judgment, that denial must include a specific reference to the affidavit or other part of the record that supports such a denial. Citations to an entire transcript of a deposition or to a lengthy exhibit are not specific and are, accordingly, inappropriate. A court should not be expected to review a lengthy record for facts that a party could have easily identified with greater particularity. See Waldridge, 24 F.3d at 922 ([D]istrict courts are not obliged in our adversary system to scour the record looking for factual disputes and may adopt local rules reasonably designed to streamline the resolution of summary judgment motions.); Herman v. City of Chicago, 870 F.2d 400, 404 (7th Cir.1989) (A district court need not scour the record to make the case of a party who does nothing.). Two of Ammons' responses cited only to a 30-page exhibit and did not provide a specific page reference. Other responses simply denied an allegation and provided no citation whatsoever. The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking these responses. 32 Finally, several of Ammons' responses do not include a statement to the effect that Ammons agrees with or denies Aramark's allegations. Instead, for these responses Ammons merely states that the allegations are irrelevant. They may be. This does not excuse, however, the non-moving party from at least indicating that it agrees with or denies the allegation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking these responses.