Opinion
2:10cv7.
March 10, 2010
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the court on the following pleading:
Plaintiff's Objection to Certification, Motion to Re-Substitute Defendant, and Motion to Delay Ruling or for Continuance, and Alternative Motion for Leave to Serve Limited Discovery (#7).
Such pleading is both responsive to the government's Motion to Substitute the United States as Sole party Defendant and to Dismiss the Named Defendant (#2); as such, defendant's pleading has been filed in violation of Local Civil Rule 7.1(C)(2), which provides as follows:
Motions Not to Be Included in Responsive Briefs. Motions shall not be included in responsive briefs. Each motion should be set forth as a separately filed pleading.
L.Cv.R. 7.1(C)(2). The reason for this rule is that ECF cannot track motions and responses filed in the same document. Plaintiff's pleading shall be stricken without prejudice and plaintiff allowed until March 16, 2010, to file a response to the government's motion and any separate motions, supported by memoranda of law, which plaintiff deems appropriate. This action is not taken to punish the plaintiff, but to assure compliance with the rules which promote the ECF system. Counsel for plaintiff should contact the Clerk of Court for any assistance needed with ECF. All parties are advised of the district court's decision in Fid. Guar. Ins. Co. v. Bradley, 212 F. Supp. 2d 163 (W.D.N.C. 2002), and should address what, if any, impact such decision has on this matter.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff's Objection to Certification, Motion to Re-Substitute Defendant, and Motion to Delay Ruling or for Continuance, and Alternative Motion for Leave to Serve Limited Discovery (#7) is STRICKEN without prejudice as filed in violation of L.Cv.R. 7.1(C)(2), and plaintiff is allowed up to and inclusive of March 16, 2010, to file a response to the government's motion and any separate motions, supported by memoranda of law, which plaintiff may deem appropriate.