Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Amy J. St. Eve than Assigned Judge
The Court denies Defendants' motion to strike  and motion for summary judgment . The case remains set for status on 6/18/12 at 8:30 a.m. Defense counsel is instructed to make arrangements for Plaintiff to appear at the 6/18/12 status via telephone and should provide the contact information to the courtroom deputy.
O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.
Pro se prisoner Plaintiff Terrance L. Smith brought this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to his objectively serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against certain medical personnel at the Illinois Department of Corrections' Northern Reception and Classification Center at the Stateville Correctional Center. Pending before the Court are Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) and motion to strike Plaintiff's Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1 materials. For the following reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motions.
I. Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1
Local Rule 56.1 assists the Court by "organizing the evidence, identifying undisputed facts, and demonstrating precisely how each side propose[s] to prove a disputed fact with admissible evidence." Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 527 (7th Cir. 2000). On December 14, 2011, Plaintiff provided his Local Rule 56.1(b) materials in response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment and Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) submissions. In the January 18, 2012 reply, Defendants argued that Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 materials were deficient and that the Court should deem Defendants' facts as admitted. Following Defendants' reply on February 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a new set of Local Rule 56.1 materials to address the concerns raised by Defendants' reply. Thereafter, Defendants brought the present motion to strike arguing that these materials were filed outside the Court's briefing schedule and without leave of Court. On February 13, 2012, the Court issued a minute order explaining that Plaintiff's supplemental filings were made in direct response to Defendants' argument that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Local Rules. The Court then instructed Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's supplemental Local Rule materials. To date, Defendants have failed to respond as ordered.
The parties' Local Rule 56.1 submissions and dispute have become a collateral matter diverting the Court and the parties from the central issue of Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim. "The Rule is designed, in part, to aid the district court, 'which does not have the advantage of the parties' familiarity with the record and often cannot afford to spend the time combing the record to locate the relevant information,' in determining whether a trial is necessary." Delapaz v. Richardson, 634 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). The parties' Local Rule 56.1 submissions and resultant dispute have not aided the Court, but instead, have only complicated matters. As such, the Court reviews the record as a whole drawing directly from the evidence instead of the parties' Local Rule 56.1 materials. The Court therefore denies Defendants' motion to strike.
In deciding summary judgment motions, "facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a 'genuine' dispute as to those ...