United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Knidel (“Knidel” or “Plaintiff”) has
filed suit against T.N.Z., Inc., Nouria Energy Retail, Inc.,
Nouria Energy Corporation, and Ziad El-Nemr (collectively,
“Defendants”) alleging federal claims for
violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C.
2601, et seq., the American with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. § 12112, and Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. § 201, et seq. Knidel also alleges state
law claims for violation of the Massachusetts
antidiscrimination statute, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B,
§§4(4), 4(4A), and 4(16), Massachusetts Wage Law,
Mass.Gen.L. ch. 149, §§100, 148.
have filed a motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 40) and,
in accordance with this Court’s Local Rule 56.1, has
included Defs’ Concise Statement of Material
Facts (Docket No. 42)(“Statement of Facts”).
Knidel has filed Pl’s Response To Defs’
Concise Statement of Material Facts (Docket
51)(“Pl’s Resp.”). This Order
addresses Defs’ Mot. To Strike Portions Of
Pl’s Resp. To Defs’ Statement Of Undisputed
Material Facts and Pl’s Mem. In Opp. To Defs’
Mot. For Sum. J. (Docket No. 55). For the reasons set
forth below, that motion is denied.
seek to strike portions of Knidel’s responses to over
55 of the factual assertions made in their Statement of
Facts. More specifically, Defendants seek to strike all
additional facts and explanations propounded by Knidel in his
response (some of which are quite lengthy), even though in
the first instance, he states that he does not dispute
Defendants’ factual assertion. For example,
Defendants’ factual assertion No. 2 reads: Plaintiff
started working for T.N.Z. on February 11, 2009.
Statement of Facts, at p. 1. Knidel’s
response: “No dispute Mr. Knidel began working on
February 11, 2009.” Rather than stop there, Knidel
inexplicably continues: “Disputed to the
extent Defendants are concluding Mr. Knidel did not work for
Defendants Nouria Energy at that time. The Weekly Time Sheet,
dated February 14, 2009, attached as Def. Ex. C, does not
mention T.N.Z. anywhere, but instead states “Rt. 20
Shell.” Plaintiff testified that he came to work for
Shell gas station in 2009 when he met Ziad and his father.
Ex. 1, Pl. Dep. at 17:13-16, 18:9-16. In February 2009, Ziad
El-Nemr was an employee of T.N.Z. and his father, Fouad
El-Nemr, was on payroll for Nouria. See Ex. 3, Fusco 30
(b)(6) Dep. at 208:24, 209:1-14.” Pl’s.
Resp., at p. 2. Defendants seek to strike from the word
“Disputed” to the end of Knidel’s reply
support, Defendants argue that the extraneous material is
irrelevant and they disagree with many of the additional
facts included by Knidel in such responses. They further
argue that they have no ability to dispute the additional
facts asserted by Knidel because LR., D.Mass. 56.1 does not
provide for the moving party to file a response to the
non-moving party’s statement of disputed
facts. Defendants also seek to strike
Knidel’s arguments in his reply memorandum which rely
on his own reply statements. Knidel argues that his response
complies with L.R., D.Mass. 56.1 and that Defendants can
respond to any perceived inaccuracies in their reply brief.
with the Defendants that Knidel’s responses include a
substantial amount of irrelevant facts and explanations--
Knidel’s response to factual assertion No. 2 set forth
above is a glaring example (there are many more). While I am
inclined to strike such extraneous information, it would be a
waste of Court resources to parse through each of the
contested responses. For that reason, I am denying
Defendants’ motion to strike. Instead, I will follow my
usual practice which is to give little to no consideration to
extraneous factual and legal assertions propounded by either
party. Moreover, any party who relies on such information to
support their position, does so at their own risk.
Mot. To Strike Portions Of Pl’s Resp. To Defs’
Statement Of Undisputed Material Facts and Pl’s Mem. In
Opp. To Defs’ Mot. For Sum. J. (Docket No. 55) is
shall file their reply brief on or before June 10, 2016.
 While this is technically true, to the
extent that the non-moving party asserts additional new facts
rather than disputing facts, the Court, while not encouraging
such a filing, will generally permit the moving ...