Opinion
CV-2020-171
04-22-2022
KATHRYN WHITEHEAD, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MAINE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LONG CREEK YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CENTER, Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Mary Gay Kennedy, Justice Maine Superior Court
Before the Court is Defendant State of Maine, Department of Corrections, Long Creek Youth Development Center's Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.
I. Background
After receiving a right-to-sue letter from the Maine Human Rights Commission, Plaintiff Kathryn Whitehead filed a seven-count Amended Complaint against Defendant. Ms. Whitehead brings claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Maine Human Rights Act, 5 M.R.S. §§ 4551-4634, retaliation in violation of the Whistleblowers' Protection Act, 26 M.R.S. §§ 831-840, sexual harassment/hostile work environment, interference and retaliation in violation of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, and violation of Maine Family Medical Leave Requirements, 26 M.R.S. §§ 843-848, in connection with her former employment at Long Creek Youth Development Center as a Juvenile Program Worker.
Defendant moves for summary judgment on all counts of Ms. Whitehead's Amended Complaint.
II. Legal Standard
At the summary judgment stage, "strict adherence to [M.R. Civ. P. 56's] requirements is necessary to ensure that the process is both predictable and just." Cach, LLC v. Kulas, 2011 ME 70, ¶ 12, 21 A.3d 1015 (quoting Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Raggiani, 2009 ME 120, ¶ 7, 985 A.2d 1). A party is entitled to summary judgment when review of the parties' statements of material facts and the record to which the statements refer demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in dispute, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); Dyer v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 106, ¶ 14, 951 A.2d 821. A court may consider documents at the summary judgment stage only when the documents are attached to an affidavit that authenticates the documents according to M.R. Civ. P. 56(e). Ocean Cmtys. Fed. Credit Union v. Roberge, 2016 ME 118, ¶ 8 n.2,144 A.3d 1178.
A contested fact is material if it could potentially affect the outcome of the case. Dyer, 2008 ME 106, ¶ 14,951 A.2d 821. A genuine issue of material fact exists if the claimed fact would require a factfinder to "choose between competing versions of the truth." Id. (quoting Farrington's Owners' Ass'n v. Conway Lake Resorts, Inc., 2005 ME 93, ¶ 9,878 A.2d 504).
When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. The evidence offered in support of a genuine issue of material fact "need not be persuasive at that stage, but the evidence must be sufficient to allow a fact-finder to make a factual determination without speculating." Est. of Smith v. Cumberland County, 2013 ME 13, ¶ 19, 60 A.3d 759.
Each party's statements must include a reference to the record where "facts as would be admissible in evidence" may be found. M.R. Civ. P. 56(e). A party's opposing statement of material facts "must explicitly admit, deny or qualify facts by reference to each numbered paragraph, and a denial or qualification must be supported by a record citation." Stanley v. Hancock Cnty. Comm'rs, 2004 ME 157, ¶ 13, 864 A.2d 169.
III. Discussion
The Law Court has opined: "If a party submits an unnecessarily long, repetitive, or otherwise convoluted statement of material facts that fails to achieve the Rule's requirement of a 'separate, short, and concise' statement, the court has the discretion to disregard the statement and deny the motion for summary judgment solely on that basis." Stanley, 2004 ME 157, ¶ 29, 864 A.2d 169 (noting that the lower court could have disregarded 191-paragraph statement of material facts in an employment discrimination and unlawful retaliation action); see First Tracks Invs., LLC v. Murray, Plumb &Murray, 2015 ME 104, ¶¶ 2-3,121 A,3d 1279 (stating that the lower court would have been "well within its discretion" to deny summary judgment where moving party submitted a 127-paragraph statement of material facts and the opposing party submitted a 130-paragraph statement of additional material facts); Oceanic Inn, Inc. v. Sloan's Cove, LLC, 2016 ME 34, ¶ 4 n.2, 133 A.3d 1021 (noting that the lower court could have properly disregarded the opposing party's 145-paragraph statement of additional material facts, when the moving party's statement of material facts numbered only eighteen paragraphs).
Here, the Court is confronted with, as the Law Court aptly put it, "a summary judgment process that [is], by definition, not 'summary.'" First Tracks Invs., LLC, 2015 ME 104, ¶ 2,121 A.3d 1279. Defendant's Statement of Material Facts includes 156 paragraphs, spanning 21 pages. Ms. Whitehead's Statement of Additional Material Facts consists of 261 paragraphs, spanning 43 pages. Thus, the total number of statements for the Court's consideration is 417. In addition, Ms. Whitehead's Response to Defendant's Statement of Material Facts consists of 42 pages in total, with some individual responses spanning multiple pages.
Although the Court is under no obligation to search the record beyond the parties' citations, the Court notes that the record in this case is exceedingly voluminous, with upwards of twenty-five exhibits from each party, including supplemental affidavits filed without prior leave of the Court. Inconsistent page numbering and organization systems make the record particularly cumbersome.
Although the Court appreciates the parties' apparent desire to be thorough, neither party's statement can be reasonably characterized as short and concise, as required by M.R. Civ. P. 56(h). The statements of both parties contain unnecessary minutiae, and Ms. Whitehead's Statement contains inflammatory characterizations and repetition. Moreover, both parties cite to portions of the record containing inadmissible hearsay, including unauthenticated and unattached documents. Based on the manner in which the parties have availed themselves of the summary judgment process, the Court denies Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The entry is:
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).