By: Derek Hawkins//September 1, 2015//
Civil
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Officials: BAUER, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges
Motion for Summary Judgment – Failure to Properly Respond
No.15-1095 Subah Packer v. Trustees of Indiana University School of Medicine
Appellant failure to respond to Defendant-respondent motion for summary judgment with references “parts of the record confirming that there are genuine disputes of material fact . . .”
“However, as proof of Brater’s differential treatment of men and women, Packer supplied only general cites to the depositions of two witnesses, along with a cite to one paragraph of her own affidavit. The district court was well within its discretion to disregard the two deposition cites, which did not point the court to particular page numbers of the depositions, in violation of both Rule 56(c)(1)(A) and Local Rule 56-1(e). It is not the court’s role or obligation to read an entire deposition or affidavit in an effort to locate the particular testimony a party might be relying on; the court ought to know what portion of a witness’s testimony the party is invoking so that it can focus its attention on that testimony and assess whether it is admissible and actually supports the fact or inference for which it is cited. See Waldridge, 24 F.3d at 923 (court is entitled to rely on “roadmaps” required by local summary judgment rules, “and without them the court should not have to proceed further, regardless of how readily it might be able to discern the relevant information from the record on its own) (citing, inter alia, Bell, Boyd Lloyd v. Tapy, 896 F.2d 1101, 1102–03 (7th Cir. 1990)); see also D.Z. v. Buell, supra, 2015 WL 4652778, at *5.”
Affirmed