1Defendants filed two nearly identical motions for summary judgment—the differencebeing that the latter [dkt 67] is redacted to comply with a protective order. In decidingDefendants’ motion, the Court will consider the un-redacted papers filed in connectiontherewith. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGANSOUTHERN DIVISIONKEVIN J. MURRAY,Plaintiff,Civil No. 08-15147v.Hon. Lawrence P. ZatkoffTIMOTHY F. GEITHNER andBOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM,Defendants.________________________________________________/OPINION AND ORDERAT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on January 14, 2011PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFFUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEI. INTRODUCTIONThis matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [dkt 57],Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [dkt 66/67],1and Plaintiff’s motion to strike [dkt 79].The parties have fully briefed the motions. The Court finds that the facts and legal arguments areadequately presented in the parties’ papers such that the decision process would not be significantlyaided by oral argument. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2), it is hereby ORDEREDthat the motions be resolved on the briefs submitted. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’smotion for summary judgment is DENIED, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment isCase 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM Document 92 Filed 01/14/11 Page 1 of 27
has intentionally blurred sections.
Sign up to view the full version.