3D Enterprises Gr. of Fl.v.Underwriters at Lloyd's

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa DivisionDec 28, 2010
Case No. 8:09-cv-576-T-33TBM (M.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2010)

Case No. 8:09-cv-576-T-33TBM.

December 28, 2010


ORDER


VIRGINIA COVINGTON, District Judge

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff 3D Enterprises's Motion to Strike Defendant's Response to 3D Enterprises's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 77), 3D Enterprises's Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits filed in Opposition to 3D Enterprises's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 78), and 3D Enterprises's Motion to Strike Inadmissible Paragraphs of the Affidavit of Jack Golden (Doc. # 79). 3D Enterprises filed the Motion to Strike Defendant's Response and Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits on December 8, 2010. (Docs. ## 77, 78). The Motion to Strike Inadmissible Paragraphs of the Affidavit of Jack Golden was filed on December 9, 2010. (Doc. # 79).

By the Motion to Strike Defendant's Response, 3D Enterprises moves this Court to enter an Order striking Defendant Underwriters at Lloyd's, London's response in opposition to 3D Enterprises's Motion for Summary Judgement. (Doc. # 77). By the Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits filed in Opposition to 3D Enterprises's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 3D Enterprises seeks an Order striking Underwriters's Exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 9 from the record. (Doc. # 78). Finally, as its title suggests, 3D Enterprises's Motion to Strike Inadmissible Paragraphs of Jack Goldin's Affidavit seeks an Order striking paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of Mr. Goldin's affidavit. (Doc. # 79).

While there are references to the Motion to Strike Defendant's Response to 3D Enterprises's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 77), the Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits filed in Opposition to 3D Enterprises's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 78), and the Motion to Strike Inadmissible Paragraphs of the Affidavit of Jack Golden (Doc. # 79), in Underwriters's Response in Opposition to 3D Enterprises's Motion to Strike Underwriters's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 84), Underwriters does not squarely address the issues raised in the Motions.

Local Rule 3.01(b), M.D. Fla., explains, "Each party opposing a motion or application shall file within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion or application a response that includes a memorandum of legal authority in opposition to the request, all of which the respondent shall include in a document not more than twenty (20) pages."

Accordingly, on the present record, the Court considers the Motions opposed only so far as Underwriters mentions them in its Response in Opposition to 3D Enterprises's Motion to Strike Underwriters's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 84). In the instance that Underwriters desires to more directly oppose the Motions, it is directed to file responses in opposition to the Motions on or before December 30, 2010. Failure to file responses to the Motions on or before December 30, 2010, will result in the Court considering the Motions opposed only so far as Underwriters mentions them in its Response in Opposition to 3D Enterprises's Motion to Strike Underwriters's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 84).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

In the instance that Underwriters desires to more directly oppose 3D Enterprises's Motion to Strike Defendant's Response to 3D Enterprises's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 77), 3D Enterprises's Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits filed in Opposition to 3D Enterprises's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 78), and 3D Enterprises's Motion to Strike Inadmissible Paragraphs of the Affidavit of Jack Golden (Doc. # 79), it is directed to file responses in opposition to the aforementioned Motions on or before December 30, 2010.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 28th day of December, 2010.