State Street Global Advisors Trust Company v. Visbal
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-01719
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In State Street Global Advisors Trust Company v. Visbal, Judge Woods granted in part State Street’s request to strike facts and declarations from summary-judgment filings.
State Street Global Advisors Trust Company and Kristen Visbal, because the order determines which factual material the court will consider in resolving State Street’s summary-judgment motion.
What happened
State Street Global Advisors Trust Company v. Visbal concerned facts and declarations submitted in connection with State Street’s motion for summary judgment. Kristen Visbal identified thirty-nine additional paragraphs in her response to State Street’s factual statement.
State Street asked the court to strike those paragraphs and two declarations supporting them. State Street argued that the additional facts could not be introduced at that stage and that facts from separate summary-judgment motions could not automatically be used for each other.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the request in part. He struck paragraphs 566 through 605 and said the court would not consider them when deciding State Street’s motion. He did not strike the declarations completely because they also supported facts that were not stricken.
The detailed version
- State Street Global Advisors Trust Company v. Visbal · No. 1:19-cv-01719
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 7, 2022
Background
In response to State Street Global Advisors Trust Company’s statement of undisputed facts under Rule 56.1, Kristen Visbal listed thirty-nine paragraphs titled “Additional Facts in Opposition to SSGA’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” State Street asked the court to strike those paragraphs and two supporting declarations.
Court’s Analysis
The court agreed that facts could not be newly raised in a reply brief if they had not been presented in the opening brief. The court also relied on its earlier order preventing the parties from “cross-pollinating”—automatically treating facts submitted for one of the two active summary-judgment motions as relevant to the other motion.
The declarations presented a separate issue. Although they partly supported the facts that the court struck, they also partly supported other facts that were not stricken. The court therefore declined to strike the declarations in their entirety.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted State Street’s request in part. He struck paragraphs 566 through 605 of the cited filing and stated that the court would not consider those paragraphs in resolving State Street’s motion for summary judgment. He declined to strike the two declarations in full, but stated that the court would not review them as relevant to the stricken facts and could consider them to the extent they were properly referenced by non-stricken facts.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.