Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MARATHON OIL CO. v. KGME

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois


September 30, 2004.

Marathon Oil Co.,
v.
KGME, Inc. et al.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOAN GOTTSCHALL, District Judge

Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that discovery taken in a previous related case demonstrates that Plaintiff is entitled to indemnification under the terms of contracts entered into with defendants. As an initial matter, the court notes that plaintiff's supporting memorandum has not complied with the provisions of local rule 7.1 (setting forth requirements for briefs in excess of 15 pages). In addition, plaintiff's papers have not complied with local rule 56.1 and the court's standing order regarding motions for summary judgment. By way of illustration, paragraph "15a" of plaintiff's 56.1 statement cites to an affidavit (but not specific portions thereof) that was apparently filed over six years ago in the related case, which subsequently settled. Plaintiff neglects to attach a copy of the affidavit, instead directing the court to the original case number where the "evidence, documents, or pleadings can be found." This and other 56.1 statements for which the plaintiff improperly did not submit supporting materials may well bear on the ultimate question of defendants' liability. Finally, the court notes that its standing order regarding motions for summary judgment requires each local rule 56.1 document to be tabbed, and requests that parties' citations to facts in their supporting memoranda be both to the documents establishing the purported fact and to their 56.1 statement.

Because plaintiff's papers have failed to comply with the local rules as well as this court's standing order regarding motions for summary judgment, its motion is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file its motion after reviewing the local rules and the court's standing order. Should plaintiff re-file its motion, defendants are likewise strongly urged to review the local rules and this court's standing order before filing a response.

20040930

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.