Page:Penguin Books v. New Christian Church of Full Endeavor.pdf/5

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was brought by order to show cause dated June 13, 2000. Oral argument was heard on June 21, 2000.

Facts

The following facts are drawn from the parties' Rule 56.1 Statements and other submissions and, as required, are construed in the light most favorable to the non-movant. They do not constitute findings of fact by the Court.^[1]

The centerpiece of this litigation is a lengthy written work entitled "A Course in Miracles" (the "Course"). The Course,

↑ Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to summary judgment on procedural grounds alone because Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment, and its Rule 56.1 Counter-Statement in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, are of "outrageous length," because Defendants' evidentiary materials submitted in support of its Rule 56.1 Statements are excessive, and because the Statements cite to inadmissible evidence. In fact, Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statements are not much longer than Plaintiffs' Rule 56.1 Statements, although Defendants' Statements are not properly formatted and do contain legal arguments, which limit their utility and make them burdensome to read. Moreover, although Defendants have submitted enormous quantities of supporting evidentiary material, much of which is duplicative and wasteful, Local Rule 56.1 only requires that the Statement be concise, and does not place limits on the amount of supporting material. Of course, to the extent that Defendants' supporting evidentiary submissions are inadmissible, they will, of course, not be considered. But the procedural defects in Defendants' submissions do not rise to a level which would merit granting Plaintiffs' requests for relief on these grounds alone.

5

[1] Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to summary judgment on procedural grounds alone because Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment, and its Rule 56.1 Counter-Statement in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, are of "outrageous length," because Defendants' evidentiary materials submitted in support of its Rule 56.1 Statements are excessive, and because the Statements cite to inadmissible evidence. In fact, Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statements are not much longer than Plaintiffs' Rule 56.1 Statements, although Defendants' Statements are not properly formatted and do contain legal arguments, which limit their utility and make them burdensome to read. Moreover, although Defendants have submitted enormous quantities of supporting evidentiary material, much of which is duplicative and wasteful, Local Rule 56.1 only requires that the Statement be concise, and does not place limits on the amount of supporting material. Of course, to the extent that Defendants' supporting evidentiary submissions are inadmissible, they will, of course, not be considered. But the procedural defects in Defendants' submissions do not rise to a level which would merit granting Plaintiffs' requests for relief on these grounds alone.

[1]