Free Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02198-PCD

Document 356

Filed 08/25/2004

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF : HARTFORD, : Plaintiff, : : -vs: : TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY, : Defendant. : ------------------------------------------------------TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY : Third-Party Plaintiff, : : -vs: : TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, : Third-Party Defendant. :

Case. No. 3:01cv2198 (PCD)

ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE Third-Party Defendant TIG moves to strike 27 pages of Defendant Trustmark's Memorandum in Opposition to TIG's Motion for Summary Judgment.1 TIG contends that because Trustmark's Opposition Brief incorporates by reference 32 pages of facts from its Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement, the Brief is 27 pages in excess of the 40 page limit and that portion should be stricken. In the alternative, TIG requests leave to file a 25 page reply brief in excess of the 10 page limit established by the rules. Local Rule 56(a)(1) states that "[a]ll material facts set forth in [the moving party's 56(a)(1) statement] will be deemed admitted unless controverted by the opposing party in accordance with Local Rule 56(a)(2)." D. Conn. L. R. Civ. P. 56(a)(1).

1

TIG's Motion has not yet been filed pursuant to this Court's Supplemental Order, but courtesy copies of the Opposition Brief have been provided.

1

Case 3:01-cv-02198-PCD

Document 356

Filed 08/25/2004

Page 2 of 2

Thus, the 56(a)(2) statement is an entirely normal part of the summary judgment process and would be considered by the Court regardless of its incorporation by reference. As a consequence, there is no basis to strike any portion of Trustmark's Brief and TIG's Motion to Strike [Doc. No. 283-1] is denied. For the same reason, TIG has failed to state a basis which supports its request to file a reply brief in excess of 10 pages and its Motion for Leave to File [Doc. No. 283-2] is also denied. SO ORDERED. Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, August 25 , 2004. /s/ Peter C. Dorsey, U.S. District Judge United States District Court

2