Wadkins v. Klingshirn

E.D. Kentucky

Wadkins v. Klingshirn

DecidedAugust 27, 2025

Docket5:23-cv-00175

StatusUnknown

This text of Wadkins v. Klingshirn (Wadkins v. Klingshirn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wadkins v. Klingshirn, (E.D. Ky. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON KENNETH WADKINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil No. 5:23-cv-00175-GFVT ) v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION KRISTYN KLINGSHIRN, ) & ) ORDER Defendant. ) )

*** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on Defendant Klingshirn’s Motion to Strike the Plaintiff’s Response to her Motion for Summary Judgment. [R. 38.] She states that the Plaintiff’s motion inappropriately circumvented the Local Rule’s 25-page limit by including multiple pages of single-spaced text. Id. In particular, she notes that “Plaintiff’s use of single-spaced text begins on page 3 and then extends more fully from page 4 through page 10. Plaintiff continues with this formatting again on pages 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 22, taking up part of or all of those pages with single spacing.” Id. If properly formatted, she notes, Plaintiff’s response would exceed the 25- page limit provided in the Local Rules. See LR 7.1(d); LR 5.2. “District courts have broad discretion in interpreting, applying, and determining the requirements of their own local rules.” Pearce v. Chrysler Grp., L.L.C. Pension Plan, 615 F. App’x 342, 349–50 (6th Cir. 2015). Moreover, “[a] court acts within its discretion when it strikes a filing for, inter alia, untimeliness or a failure to comply with the local rules.” Schilling Foods, LLC v. First Data Corp., No. 2:18-CV-2320-MSN-CGC, 2021 WL 5161908, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 30, 2021). The Court agrees that the filing likely violated the Local Rules through the use of numerous single-spaced paragraphs. However, the Court does not find that the violation is so serious as to warrant striking the filing from the record. See id. at *2 (“Although Plaintiff arguably did not comply with the Local Rules when filing its Reconsideration Motion, given the brevity of the portion of the Court’s Order for which Plaintiff sought reconsideration, the Court finds striking the Reconsideration Motion as a sanction is not appropriate.”). Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike [R. 38] is DENIED.

This the 26th day of August, 2025.

hee Wes & A Og Gregory F*Van Tatenhove United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON KENNETH WADKINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil No. 5:23-cv-00175-GFVT ) v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION KRISTYN KLINGSHIRN, ) & ) ORDER Defendant. ) )

*** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on Defendant Klingshirn’s Motion to Strike the Plaintiff’s Response to her Motion for Summary Judgment. [R. 38.] She states that the Plaintiff’s motion inappropriately circumvented the Local Rule’s 25-page limit by including multiple pages of single-spaced text. Id. In particular, she notes that “Plaintiff’s use of single-spaced text begins on page 3 and then extends more fully from page 4 through page 10. Plaintiff continues with this formatting again on pages 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 22, taking up part of or all of those pages with single spacing.” Id. If properly formatted, she notes, Plaintiff’s response would exceed the 25- page limit provided in the Local Rules. See LR 7.1(d); LR 5.2. “District courts have broad discretion in interpreting, applying, and determining the requirements of their own local rules.” Pearce v. Chrysler Grp., L.L.C. Pension Plan, 615 F. App’x 342, 349–50 (6th Cir. 2015). Moreover, “[a] court acts within its discretion when it strikes a filing for, inter alia, untimeliness or a failure to comply with the local rules.” Schilling Foods, LLC v. First Data Corp., No. 2:18-CV-2320-MSN-CGC, 2021 WL 5161908, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 30, 2021). The Court agrees that the filing likely violated the Local Rules through the use of numerous single-spaced paragraphs. However, the Court does not find that the violation is so serious as to warrant striking the filing from the record. See id. at *2 (“Although Plaintiff arguably did not comply with the Local Rules when filing its Reconsideration Motion, given the brevity of the portion of the Court’s Order for which Plaintiff sought reconsideration, the Court finds striking the Reconsideration Motion as a sanction is not appropriate.”). Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike [R. 38] is DENIED.

This the 26th day of August, 2025.

hee Wes & A Og Gregory F*Van Tatenhove United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wadkins v. Klingshirn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wadkins-v-klingshirn-kyed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack