JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
On August 23, 2013, Motions for Summary Judgment were filed in this case. After multiple extensions of time, Responses were filed on November 22, 2013. On November 27, 2013, some parties moved to strike another party's responsive statement of facts. Those parties then sought expedited consideration of the motion to strike and an extension of time to file the replies until after the Court rules on the motion to strike.
Local Rule Civil 7.2(m) states: "An objection to (and any argument regarding) the admissibility of evidence offered in support of or opposition to a motion must be presented in the objecting party's responsive or reply memorandum and not in a separate motion to strike...." This rule was designed, in part, to prevent exactly what the parties in this case seek to accomplish: delaying the briefing of the summary judgment motions by tangential motions to strike. Accordingly, the Court will grant the request for expedited consideration, deny the motion to strike because it is not permitted by Local Rule Civil 7.2(m) and deny the request for an extension of time to file the replies.
The parties shall not move for reconsideration of this order arguing that this particular iteration of a motion to strike is somehow different than what is forbidden by the civil local rules. The Court finds that even though this motion to strike goes beyond objecting to the evidence, it nonetheless fall within the prohibition of the civil local rules. Accordingly, if the parties seek to make these (or any other) objections to the responsive statement of facts, any such objections must be made in the replies.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for expedited consideration (Doc. 178) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to strike (Doc. 177) is denied without prejudice to raising the ...