Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:13-cv-01097_de70> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:13-cv-01097_de70 RegisterActionDate "2015-08-18" @default.
- ilnd;;1:13-cv-01097_de70 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Plaintiff's extension motion 63 would have been granted, but it is instead terminated, because the memoranda [68, 69] do not comply with the briefing format. Because the parties were going to file cross motions for summary judgment, the Court clearly explained, during the 05/22/2015 status hearing and on the docket as well, that to minimize overlap and to promote efficiency, the parties would file 4 briefs, rather than 6 briefs, starting with a defense opening brief, then a "combined" motion and response from Plaintiff, then a combined reply and response from the defense, and then a reply from Plaintiff on his cross motion. R. 55. In violation of this schedule and format, Plaintiff filed two separate briefs, one as an affirmative motion, and the other as a response to the defense motion. R. 68, 69. Plaintiff shall actually think about the presentation of the pertinent case law and issues (for example, a section explaining his view of the governing case law, and then separate discussions explaining why he is entitled to summary judgment and why, at the very least, the defense is not entitled to summary judgment), and then file a combined brief forthwith, no later than 08/20/2015. Plaintiff may use 25 pages for this combined brief. The defense's combined reply and response is due by 09/21/2015. Plaintiff's reply is due by by 10/05/2015. Emailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 08/18/2015)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:13-cv-01097_de70 AdministrativeID "70" @default.
- ilnd;;1:13-cv-01097_de70 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:13-cv-01097_de70 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:13-cv-01097_de63 @default.