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.

Stampf v. Long Island Railroad Authority

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


December 30, 2009

MELISSA STAMPF, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD AUTHORITY, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, JAMES SOKIRA, AND ANGELA TRIGG, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gold, S., United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

During the December 11, 2009 telephone conference, the parties were directed to confer on a revised briefing schedule. As of today's date, the court has not received a revised schedule. If the parties have one, they shall file it forthwith. If not, they shall confer and submit a revised schedule no later than January 8, 2010. If the parties fail to submit a schedule by that date, the court sets the following schedule: defendants' opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion is due January 22, 2010; plaintiff's reply is due January 29, 2010. Depending on the parties' revised schedule, the oral argument previously scheduled for January 20, 2010 will most likely be adjourned.

In addition, plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement is deficient for several reasons. First, it fails to follow subsection (b) of Local Rule 56.1 that requires "[t]he papers opposing a motion . . . [to] include a correspondingly numbered paragraph responding to each numbered paragraph in the statement of the moving party." The Rule also provides that "if necessary, [a party may submit] additional paragraphs containing a separate, short and concise statement of additional material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried." Local Rule 56.1(b) (emphasis added). Second, plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement, while citing generally to lengthy deposition transcripts, fails to cite to the specific pages within the deposition transcripts that support her factual contentions. See Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., Inc., 258 F.3d 62, 74 (2d Cir. 2001) ("The purpose of Local Rule 56.1 is to streamline the consideration of summary judgment motions by freeing district courts from the need to hunt through voluminous records without guidance from the parties."); Stewart v. New York City Dep't of Info. Tech. & Telecomms., 2001 WL 1398680, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2001) (ordering a party to citations with specific page numbers in lengthy documents).

Accordingly, plaintiff shall file an amended 56.1 Statement in compliance with Local Rule 56.1 no later than January 8, 2010.

Finally, counsel shall provide a courtesy copy to Chambers of their motion papers and exhibits as soon as practicable, and in any event no later than January 8, 2010. Courtesy copies of subsequent submissions should be submitted to Chambers at or about the time they are electronically filed.

SO ORDERED.

STEVEN M. GOLD United States Magistrate Judge

20091230

© 1992-2009 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.