Unformatted text preview: ph in the moving
party's statement" and, in the case of disagreement, to provide "specific references to the
affidavits, parts of the record," and any other materials that support the nonmoving party's
factual disagreement. Thus, a naked denial of a fact set forth in the Rule 12(M) statement
is insufficient and will operate as an admission that the fact is accurate. The unambiguous
language of the rule indicates that compliance is not discretionary and, therefore, the
Seventh Circuit has "repeatedly upheld the strict enforcement" of its [*9] provisions.
Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 921-22 (7th Cir. 1994) (and cases
In the present case, the Department has filed a Rule 12(M) statement in support of its
motion for summary judgment that asserts, in numbered paragraphs and citations to the
record, those facts in the record that it claims are undisputed. In response, Zihala has filed
a "Counterstatement" that disputes the facts set forth in 9 of the 28 paragraphs of the
Department's 12(M) statement. In doing so, Zihala simply recites her version of the facts
without indicating those portions of the record that support her factual contentions.
Notably, while Zihala proclaims that she "strongly disputes" the truth of the reasons her
supervisors gave for discharging her and disputes whether Dr. Pirl had knowledge of her
alleged disability before he decided to discharge her, she provides her version of the facts
without citation to the record. (PP 11, 22). This is clearly insufficient. Therefore, under
Rule 12(N), all of the facts alleged in the Department's Rule 12(M) statement are
"deemed admitted" to the extent there is support in the record. See e.g., Valenti v.
Qualex, Inc., 970 [*10] F.2d 363, 369 (7th Cir. 1992) ("Any facts asserted by the
movant and not contradicted in the manner specified by the rule are deemed admitted.").
In her complaint, Zihala claims that the Department discharged her in violation of the
ADA because she suffered from bipolar disorde...
View Full Document
- Spring '08
- Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Summary judgment