United States District Court, D. Montana, Helena Division
WEH Magic Valley Holdings, LLC, a limited liability corporation, Plaintiff,
EIH Parent, LLC, a limited liability company and James Carkulis, an individual, Defendants.
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
HADDON, United States District Judge
29, 2017, the Court supplemented and in part replaced prior
scheduling orders in this case. Thereafter and as ordered by
the Court, motions and briefs were filed directed to:
(1) the attorneys' fees issue in Count I of the Second
Amended Complaint; (2) remaining issues in Counts II, III,
IV, and VI [sic] as asserted against Carkulis individually in
the Second Amended Complaint; and (3) issues related to
Defendants' Counterclaim as asserted against Plaintiff in
Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint. Each
party shall file a response, if appropriate, with supporting
documents, on or before August 4, 2017. An optional reply
brief shall be due on or before August 18,
materials filed in support and in opposition to the several
pending motions encompass over 117 pages of briefing, over 55
combined statements of undisputed facts and disputed facts in
over 85 pages of materials in support and in opposition to
motions,  some 125 of which are asserted to be
additional facts that, in turn, reference to over 254
separate citations to other materials said to support either
disputed or undisputed facts.
support materials as submitted also include compilations of
selected parts of, but not complete, texts of several
depositions. Such incomplete compilations render virtually
impossible the task of deciphering whether the selected
materials made available to the Court accurately reflect the
complete content of the depositions referenced.
separately identified in the undisputed and disputed fact
statements or offered in support of such statements,
likewise, are not sufficiently identified or authenticated to
enable the Court, without additional information not
provided, to permit a reasoned decision to be made as to
whether the documents referenced would be admissible in
evidence at trial.
separate affidavits or declarations totaling 383 pages have
been submitted, some of which were by counsel of record and
which may raise, other issues aside, the question of whether
such counsel have, by that action, made himself or herself a
percipient witness subject to, inter alia, Mont. R.
Prof. Conduct 3.7 (2014).
summary, the filings now before the Court, directed to new
pending issues, encompass over 590 separate pages of material
and some 16 separate documents that the Court will be
required to review and digest to discern if feasible whether
a moving party has established sufficient undisputed material
facts to entitle it to particular relief as requested.
summary judgment process is undoubtedly an important
component of our civil justice system. It is not, however, a
document driven replacement for trial on the merits by which
the trial judge is expected to take on and carry out the task
of divining undisputed relevant material fact truth from a
myriad of varying and often conflicting factual accounts,
recollections and inferences. Summary judgment is not an
out-of-courtroom, weight of paper substitute for trial on the
merits, which, itself remains as a bedrock of our system of
case, the Court has determined it is inappropriate to order
summary judgment on issues raised by the pending motions on
the record as it is now characterized and presented in the
filings by the parties. Obvious issues of material fact are
present and remain that preclude any such order. To undertake
to do so would require an inordinate waste of counsel and
court resources, do little or nothing to advance the merit
dispute resolution process and would in the end even further
delay disposition of the case.
pending motions for summary judgement are
denied. Each party shall have the option to and
including September 22, 2017, in which to refile a motion for
summary judgment, briefs and supporting papers, in whole or
in part, in appropriate form and content warranting merit
consideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
summary judgment motions are submitted, the parties are
strongly urged to limit requests for relief to those in which
counsel are prepared to represent to the court that the
relief sought is fully supported ...