TIG Insurance Company v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-08975
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In TIG Insurance v. Swiss Reinsurance, Judge Roman granted Swiss Reinsurance’s request and struck plaintiffs’ unauthorized Rule 56.1 reply.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs’ ability to rely on their Response to SRA’s Statement of Additional Material Facts and SRA’s position in the summary-judgment briefing. The order did not state the identities of the individual plaintiffs.
What happened
In TIG Insurance Company v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation, the parties had fully briefed cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed their own factual statement, responded to Swiss Reinsurance’s statement, and then filed another response to Swiss Reinsurance’s additional facts.
Swiss Reinsurance argued that this third factual submission was not allowed by the court’s local rules or the judge’s practice rules. It asked the court to strike the filing or, alternatively, disregard it. Swiss Reinsurance also argued that the filing raised factual arguments too late, could unfairly prejudice it, and exceeded the page limit for reply briefs.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Swiss Reinsurance’s request. The court struck plaintiffs’ Response to Swiss Reinsurance’s Statement of Additional Material Facts, including the sealed filing, and directed the clerk to terminate the related motion.
The detailed version
- TIG Insurance Company v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation · No. 7:21-cv-08975
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 3, 2024
Background
The parties had fully briefed cross-motions for summary judgment. Under Local Rule 56.1, each side filed a statement of undisputed material facts and responded to the opposing side’s statement. Those responses also included statements of additional material facts that the parties claimed presented genuine issues for trial.
Plaintiffs then filed a document titled “Response to SRA’s Statement of Additional Material Facts” at ECF Nos. 110 and 111, with the latter filing sealed. Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation, referred to as SRA in the opinion, described the document as an unauthorized third Rule 56.1 submission or “Reply Rule 56.1 Statement.”
The parties’ arguments
SRA asked the court to strike plaintiffs’ filing. In the alternative, it asked the court to disregard the submission. SRA argued that Local Rule 56.1 and the judge’s individual rules did not authorize a reply to a response to additional facts, and that plaintiffs had not asked the court for permission or obtained SRA’s consent.
SRA also argued that the filing was improper because it addressed factual issues about AEGIS’s allocation of 57% of its settlement payment to SRA, issues plaintiffs had not addressed in their opening Rule 56.1 statement. SRA contended that allowing plaintiffs to raise them in an unauthorized reply would prejudice SRA. It further argued that the 16-page submission evaded the 10-page limit for reply briefs because it contained arguments that should have appeared in the reply brief.
Ruling
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted SRA’s request. The order states that plaintiffs’ Response to SRA’s Statement of Additional Material Facts, filed at ECF Nos. 110 and 111, was “stricken for filing without leave.” The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 114.
This order addressed the propriety of plaintiffs’ additional factual filing in the summary-judgment briefing. The opinion text provided does not state how the court ruled on the parties’ underlying cross-motions for summary judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.