United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
WILLIAM A. WHITE, Plaintiff,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on a variety of motions filed
by plaintiff William A. White. The Court addresses each in
Motion to Vacate Court's Orders at Doc. 92 & 94 (Doc.
asks the Court to vacate its orders allowing the defendants
to exceed the page limit for their response to White's
summary judgment motion (Doc. 92) and allowing the defendants
a brief extension of time to file its response and its
cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. 94). White complains
that he had not been served with copies of the
defendants' motions. The defendants explained their
inadvertent failure to serve White at the time they filed
their motions (Doc. 100) and eventually served the motions on
White. The Court allowed White an opportunity to respond to
the motions for extensions of page and time limits, which he
has done (Doc. 114).
White says in his response convinces the Court that it should
have exercised its discretion to deny the defendants'
reasonable requests for extensions of page and time limits.
Nor has White shown he was prejudiced by the defendants'
initial failure to serve him; even if White had been timely
served and filed his objections before the Court's
ruling, the ruling would have been the same. Accordingly, the
Court DENIES White's motion to vacate
the orders at Docs. 92 and 94 (Doc. 97).
Motion to Strike Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 102)
asks the Court to strike the defendants' cross-motion for
summary judgment (Doc. 98) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f) as frivolous, malicious, impertinent and
intended to harass. He asserts that the defendants'
counsel has made personal attacks on White in the motion and
that the summary judgment motion has no merit.
preliminary matter, Rule 12(f) authorizes striking matters
from pleading-that is, a complaint, answer or
court-ordered reply-not from other filings. As for the
Court's inherent authority to strike impermissible
filings other than pleadings, see Keaton v. Hannum,
No. 1:12-CV-00641-SEB, 2013 WL 1800577, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Apr.
29, 2013) (collecting cases), the Court has reviewed the
defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment and finds
nothing in it that justifies striking it. It describes
White's litigation history, suggests his litigation under
the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) is
frivolous or malicious, and seeks to justify the
defendants' responses to his FOIA requests. None of that
warrants striking. If the defendants' arguments have no
merit, the Court will figure that out when it addresses the
substance of the pending summary judgment motions.
these reasons, the Court DENIES White's
motion to strike the defendants' cross-motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 102).
Motion to Strike Defendants' Summary Judgment Response
asks the Court to strike the defendants' response and its
exhibits (Doc. 95) in opposition to his third motion for
summary judgment because they were filed late and exceeded
the page limit set forth in Local Rule 7.1(c). The defendants
have responded (Doc. 111), noting that they filed their
summary judgment response within the extensions discussed
above in Section I. White believes the defendants'
failure to initially serve him with the motion for an
extension of the page and time limit justifies striking their
response and its exhibits.
defendants' procedural failure, while regrettable, did
not prejudice White because he was given, albeit belatedly,
an opportunity to respond to the motions, and his objections
were insufficient to have caused the Court to render a
different decision on the motions, as discussed above. The
defendants' response and its exhibits were filed within
the extensions allowed by the Court and will therefore not be
stricken. The Court DENIES White's
motion to strike these documents (Doc. 103).
Motion to Set Briefing Schedule (Doc. 107)
asks the Court to set a briefing schedule for a subsequent
round of summary judgment briefing. He anticipates that
issues will remain to be decided after the ...