Judge Seibel Delivers Master Class on SDNY Rule 56.1 Statements

Practitioners in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York face an added requirement when moving for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 – the Rule 56.1 statement. That local rule requires the moving party to file with their motion: “a separate, short and concise statement, in numbered paragraphs, of the material facts as to which the moving part contends there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried.” SDNY Local Civ. R. 56.1. The opposing party must then file a responsive statement with their opposition papers. In each case, the alleged facts must be supported by citation to admissible evidence. The rule explicitly warns the party opposing summary judgment that if they fail to “specifically controvert” the moving party’s statement, the moving party’s facts “will be deemed to be admitted” for purposes of resolving the motion. Id.

In a recent case out of the SDNY’s White Plains Division, Judge Cathy Seibel was faced with an opposing party’s Rule 56.1 responsive statement that flagrantly violated the local rule in multiple respects. Judge Seibel used that improper filing to offer the parties – and all litigants and attorneys – a comprehensive guide to the proper use of the SDNY 56.1 statement.

The Case: Sanjay Tripathy v. Robert McCloskey, et al., 2024 WL 2135623, Case No. 7:21-cv-06584-CS (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2024)

In Tripathy, the pro se plaintiff, an inmate at two New York State prisons, sued state prison officials for religious discrimination. See Tripathy v. McCloskey, et al., No. 7:21-cv-06584-CS, 2021 WL 5771129, at *1-3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2021), appeal dismissed as moot 2022 WL 2069229 (2d Cir. June 9, 2022). The plaintiff alleged the prison system refused to respect his Hindu dietary restrictions forbidding him to be in contact with beef or pork by providing him with separate meals as prisoners of other religions received. Judge Seibel initially granted the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction in part. Over the next several years, the case proceeded through discovery until the defendants moved for summary judgment.

The plaintiff opposed the summary judgment motion, submitting a 56.1 statement alongside his opposition that was 356 pages long (versus 25 pages for the moving party’s statement). Without ruling on the summary judgment motion, Judge Seibel struck the plaintiff’s 56.1 statement and granted him the courtesy of a second attempt. Judge Seibel then took the opportunity to offer extensive guidance on Rule 56.1:

• The plaintiff’s statement was first and foremost too long. The rule calls for a short and concise statement, not a book length submission. Noting that the defendants’ statement was 25 pages, and the plaintiff was required to restate the defendants’ paragraphs and then provide his response, Judge Seibel commented that 50 pages was likely sufficient with 75 pages the absolute maximum.
• Next, the plaintiff did not properly controvert the factual contentions in the defendants’ 56.1 statement. Judge Seibel explained that a 56.1 statement’s purpose is to identify for the court which facts are disputed or undisputed. Therefore, simply reciting the facts favorable to your position or supplying additional context for the movant’s alleged undisputed fact, does not fulfill the statement’s purpose.
• The plaintiff’s statement was impermissibly argumentative. A 56.1 statement is about admitting or disputing facts. It is not a second memorandum of law. Thus, Judge Seibel counseled that the statement should not “reflect [a plaintiff’s] opinion” or “consist of legal argument.” Indeed, to include argument in a 56.1 Statement “is a manifest evasion of the page limitation on plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.” Id. (quoting Goldstick v. The Hartford, Inc., 2002 WL 1906029, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2002)).
• Lastly, the plaintiff’s statement was “largely, if not completely, devoid of specific citations” to the record. One of the goals of Local Civil Rule 56.1 was to place the onus on the parties to identify relevant evidence, rather than forcing the court to comb the record. That goal is only achieved when each paragraph in the 56.1 statement is supported by a citation to record evidence demonstrating the particular fact’s disputed or undisputed nature.

Takeaway

In Tripathy, Judge Seibel concluded that “the purpose of a LR 56.1 response is simply to advise the Court as to whether the specific fact asserted by the moving party is or is not disputed, and if it is disputed, to provide the Court with the evidence on which the non-moving party relies to dispute that particular fact. It presents no occasion for context, argument, semantic quibbles, opinions or conclusions.” Practitioners should heed the court’s instructions and take care not to become overzealous in their advocacy when drafting 56.1 statements, lest they risk a court “disregard[ing] any paragraph in his amended LR 56.1 Response that does not comply . . . and that that will result in the Court deeming admitted the corresponding facts in Defendant’s LR 56.1 Statement if they are properly supported by admissible evidence.”