ODONGO v. CEVA

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Exceed Response Brief Pages

S.D. Ind.December 28, 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION PETER ODONGO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Cause No.: 1:16-cv-2422-SEB-MJD ) CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC., and ) PAUL FOX, ) ) Defendants. ) DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCEED RESPONSE BRIEF PAGES Defendants, CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc. and Paul Fox, by counsel, for their Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Response Brief Pages (Dkt. No. 125), state as follows: 1. Plaintiff continues to unreasonably and vexatiously litigate this case. 2. Plaintiff’s “Summary Judgment Brief on Employment Discrimination” (Dkt. No. 124) (hereafter “Plaintiff’s Response Brief”)—which he claims is unfinished—and which was filed in response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 100), is currently 87 pages long. 3. Plaintiff’s request to exceed the 35-page response brief limit should be denied. 4. Although Plaintiff believes in some wider conspiracy that involves virtually every person and/or business he encounters, this is actually a single plaintiff case that involves baseless claims concerning Plaintiff’s approximate three-week temporary work assignment at CEVA in April 2016. Case 1:16-cv-02422-SEB-MJD Document 128 Filed 12/28/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1367 2 5. Consistent with the page-limit confines of Local Rule 7-1, Defendants’ Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 101) is 32 pages long.1 6. Additionally, as noted in Defendants’ prior filings (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 87), even if Plaintiff’s far-fetched allegations are true—which they are not—Plaintiff’s out-of-pocket damages are minimal—less than $1,000—because he obtained new employment and/or a new work assignment within a week after his employer, Elwood Staffing Services, Inc., ended his assignment at CEVA. Such potential damages do not justify an almost 90-page response brief. 7. Plaintiff’s Response Brief is redundant, excessive, and also includes wholly irrelevant allegations and claims, including allegations regarding a temporary work assignment he had at Brightpoint a year earlier (and for which he has a pending lawsuit). See, e.g., Dkt. No. 124 at 44 et seq. WHEREFORE, Defendants, by counsel, respectfully request the Court to deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Response Brief Pages, and for all other just and proper relief. 1 Defendants also deny “us[ing] lies and falsifying material facts” in relation to their Motion for Summary Judgment. Case 1:16-cv-02422-SEB-MJD Document 128 Filed 12/28/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1368 3 Respectfully submitted, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. By: s/Shelley R. McCoy Brian L. McDermott (16788-32) Robert F. Seidler (28432-29) Shelley R. McCoy (28594-49) 111 Monument Circle, Suite 4600 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Telephone: (317) 916-1300 Facsimile: (317) 916-9076 brian.mcdermott@ogletree.com robert.seidler@ogletree.com shelley.mccoy@ogletree.com Attorneys for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 28, 2017, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. I further certify that on December 28, 2017, a copy of the foregoing was mailed, by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid addressed to the following: Peter Odongo PO Box 42502 Indianapolis, IN 46242 ptrodongo@gmail.com s/Shelley R. McCoy Shelley R. McCoy 32352735.1 Case 1:16-cv-02422-SEB-MJD Document 128 Filed 12/28/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1369