Wai Feng Trading Co. LTD et al v. Quick Fitting, Inc., No. 1:2013cv00033 - Document 232 (D.R.I. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying (206) Motion to Strike ; denying (207) Motion to Strike ; denying (217) Motion to Strike ; denying (181) Motion to Strike ; denying (183) Motion in Limine; denying (184) Motion to Strike in case 1:13-cv-00033-WES-PA S; denying (258) Motion to Strike ; denying (261) Motion in Limine; denying (262) Motion to Strike ; denying (290) Motion to Strike ; denying (291) Motion to Strike ; denying (305) Motion to Strike in case 1:13-cv-00056-WES-PAS. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan on 12/17/2018. Associated Cases: 1:13-cv-00033-WES-PAS, 1:13-cv-00056-WES-PAS(Saucier, Martha)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
a single set of counter-facts is contemplated. DRI LR Cv 56 (a)(3) (“An objecting party . . . shall file a Statement of Disputed Facts[.]”) (emphasis supplied). Similarly, after properly filing a set of undisputed facts in support of its own motion, two months later (and long after the Wai Feng parties had properly responded to the first statement), Quick Fitting improperly filed a second statement of undisputed facts (13-56 ECF No. 259-3), with no indication on how they might relate to the first set. 5 See DRI LR Cv 56(a)(1) (“A motion for summary judgment shall be accompanied by a separate Statement of Undisputed Facts[.]”) (emphasis supplied). Then, as motions moved into the opposition phase, Quick Fitting filed a massive (152 separate paragraphs) “combined” statement of undisputed facts (ECF No. 189-1). This statement is a do-over of earlier-filed facts, but with differences; as such, it is a blatant violation of the mandate of Local Rule 56(a)(4), which requires that such a statement must be limited to “additional undisputed facts not contained in the moving party’s statement of undisputed facts[.]” In addition to violating the letter of Local Rule 56(a), these unauthorized filings totally defeated the Court’s goal of allowing the parties to sort through this factually complex record before focusing on their legal arguments. At least some of this conduct appears to have been triggered by Quick Fitting’s perceived need to gussy up its “facts” after it saw the Wai Feng parties’ legal response to its initial effort. Quick Fitting’s conduct left the Wai Feng parties on the horns of a dilemma: they could either (1) comply with the Local Rule and the Text Order and leave the waves of new facts 5 Quick Fitting argues that the Court’s Text Order, which sequenced facts first, followed by motions, did not abrogate the Local Rule so that its do-over of its opening statement of undisputed facts in support of its own summary judgment motion was permissible. This argument is flawed in that it relies on the premise that the Text Order required the parties to engage in an empty exercise. 5 unanswered; or (2) respond with waves of counter-facts, increasing the size and complexity of the mess for the Court to untangle. The Wai Feng parties chose the former path. To protect themselves from the unanswered facts, they moved to strike each of Quick Fitting’s statements that are beyond what is contemplated by the Local Rule, for a total of three such motions. If only to alleviate the burden that Quick Fitting’s conduct imposes on the Court, it is tempting to grant at least some of these motions to strike. See Geffert Co., 815 F. Supp. 2d at 524 (“lengthy, complex, and repetitious statement of disputed facts complicates matters and greatly increases the burden on this Court”). When parties ignore the established procedure for summary judgment factual development, the Court is left to the time-consuming task of “ferret[ing] through the record to discern whether any material fact is genuinely in dispute.” CMI Capital Mkt. Inv., LLC v. González-Toro, 520 F.3d 58, 62 (1st Cir. 2008); see RiosJimenez v. Principi, 520 F.3d 31, 38 (1st Cir. 2008) (“litigants ignore [Local Rules] at their peril”). However, also hanging in the balance is the Court’s commitment to administering justice so that cases are resolved on their merits. Kuehl v. F.D.I.C., 8 F.3d 905, 908 (1st Cir. 1993) (“Our federal rules promote the disposition of claims on the merits rather than on the basis of technicalities.”). With that in mind, the Court denies the motions to strike the unauthorized statements; instead, it has studied each fact (including multiple versions of the same fact) and dug deeply into the record to round out the factual picture, thereby vastly increasing the burden on the Court, but offsetting the prejudice that Quick Fitting’s conduct inflicted on the Wai Feng parties. Based on the foregoing, all six motions are denied. So ordered. 6 ENTER: /s/ Patricia A. Sullivan PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN United States Magistrate Judge December 17, 2018 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
