Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and Response.
Some Quotes from Rev Hale contained in this document.......
" Plaintiff was unaware that Judge Krieger had separate practice standards for her court until he received the Defendant's reply and "fact exhibit". "
" The fact that the Defendant has only made Plaintiff aware of the practice standards now by citing them doesn't do Plaintiff much good, it should have provided it to the Plaintiff when he actually could have put them to use. "
" In Sum, Plaintiff unfortunately was unaware that any such practice standards existed, didn't have them when he wrote his response to the Defendant's motion for summary judgement, and should not be penalized for not comporting with them accordingly. "
" What would not be just, on the other hand, would be to allow the Defendant a whopping 495 pages in support of its motion for summary judgement (138 page motion, 75 page reply, and 282 page "fact exhibit" ) while allowing Plaintiff the equivalent of only 80 pages in response. "
" The Defendant is essentially trying to contrive a "David versus Goliath" scenario here with it's ridiculously long filings, but in this case "David" is conveniently not to be afforded the use of a sling shot if the Defendant has its way. That is not justice but bullying. "
" Lastly, this case is simply too important for the sake of religious freedom in this country for the court to allow Plaintiff to be blindsided in the manner that the Defendant recommends. "
No comments:
Post a Comment