Giles v. City of Mount Vernon
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-05119
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Giles v. City of Mount Vernon, Judge Halpern rejected the parties’ Rule 56.1 statements and ordered a joint replacement.
The parties in Giles v. City of Mount Vernon, including Michael Giles and the defendants, must revise and jointly file their Rule 56.1 Statement.
What happened
In Giles v. City of Mount Vernon, the court refused to accept the factual statements the parties filed with their summary-judgment papers because they did not follow the court’s individual practices.
The court directed the parties to meet and discuss the problem, then file one revised joint factual statement by October 26, 2023. That filing must include all parties’ factual statements, counterstatements, and responses, and must be no more than 25 pages.
Judge Halpern’s order addressed the parties’ filing requirements and did not decide the underlying summary-judgment issues.
The detailed version
- Giles v. City of Mount Vernon · No. 7:20-cv-05119
- Philip Halpern
- Oct. 12, 2023
What the order addressed
The court addressed the Rule 56.1 statements filed with the parties’ summary-judgment motion papers. A Rule 56.1 statement presents the material facts that a party says are undisputed or disputed in connection with a summary-judgment motion.
Court’s action
The court stated that it would not accept the Rule 56.1 statements filed at Documents 87 and 90 because they failed to comply with the court’s Individual Practices.
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer by October 26, 2023, and then file a single revised joint Rule 56.1 Statement. The revised statement must include all parties’ statements of fact, any counterstatements of fact, and responses to each statement. It must be limited to 25 pages and comply with the court’s rules and the rules governing summary-judgment motion practice.
Scope of the ruling
The order concerns the form and filing of the factual statements. The opinion does not decide the merits of the parties’ summary-judgment arguments.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.