Oirya v. Auburn Univ.

JOHN OIRYA, Plaintiff, v. AUBURN UNIVERSITY andGEORGE FLOWERS, Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-681-WC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

October 2, 2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff John Oirya ("Plaintiff" or "Oirya") has brought claims against Auburn University ("Auburn") and George Flowers ("Flowers") (together, "Defendants") in connection with his admission and subsequent disenrollment at Auburn Graduate School's College of Business. Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 79), and Plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. 99). Defendants' motion is fully briefed and is ripe for consideration. For the reasons below, the Court finds that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement is due to be GRANTED.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a reviewing court shall grant a motion for "summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Only disputes about material facts will preclude the granting of summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). "An issue of fact is 'genuine' if the record as a whole could lead a reasonable trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. An issue is 'material' if it might affect the outcome of the case under the governing law." Redwing Vehicleriers, Inc. v. Saraland Apartments, 94 F.3d 1489, 1496 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248).

Under Rule 56, summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The party asking for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. at 323. The movant can meet this burden by presenting evidence showing there is no dispute of material fact, or by showing that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of his case on which he bears the ultimate burden of proof. Id. at 322-23.

Once the movant has satisfied this burden, the nonmoving party must "go beyond the pleadings and by his own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324. In doing so, and to avoid summary judgment, the nonmovant "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The partiesmust support their assertions "that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed" by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations[], admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials" or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) & (B).

If the nonmovant "fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact" as required by Rule 56(c), then the court may "consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion" and "grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials - including the facts considered undisputed - show that the movant is entitled to it." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) & (3).

In determining whether a genuine issue for trial exists, the court must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003). Likewise, the reviewing court must draw all justifiable inferences from the evidence in the nonmoving party's favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. However, "mere conclusions and unsupported factual allegations are legally insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion." Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Furthermore, "[a] mere 'scintilla' of evidence supporting the opposing party's position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party." Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990); see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 ("Ifthe evidence [on which the nonmoving party relies] is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.") (internal citations omitted).

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT REQUIREMENTS

Before setting out the undisputed facts in this case, the Court finds is necessary to set forth the provisions governing factual assertions and evidentiary submissions for summary judgment motions. Rule 56(c)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a "party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of material in the record...." Additionally, this Court's Uniform Scheduling Order (Doc. 22), contains the following requirements with respect to dispositive motions:

• In all briefs filed by any party relating to the motion, the discussion of the evidence in the brief must be accompanied by a specific reference, by page and line, to where the evidence can be found in a supporting deposition or document. Failure to make such specific reference will result in the evidence not being considered by the court. Doc. 22 § 2.

• All briefs in support of and in opposition to the motion shall be accompanied by an appendix which includes the evidence upon which the parties rely. Id. at § 2, ¶ 6.

• Any discussion of evidence in a brief must include the specific reference, by page and line, to where the evidence can be found in the supporting evidentiary appendix or in a court pleading or other filing (complaint, answer, brief, etc.). Id. at § 2, ¶ 7.

• Failure to comply strictly with these provisions could result in dismissal of the motion or appropriate sanctions. Id. at § 2, ¶ 9.

Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 99) along with a Declaration of the Plaintiff (Doc. 99-1) and an "Appendix" listing Exhibits A through F on the cover. Only Exhibits A and B (copies oftwo emails from Chris Anthony to George Crandall) are actually attached to the Appendix. Exhibit C, identified as a Maran White Letter to Plaintiff's Counsel, is not attached, but a portion of the letter is incorporated into Plaintiff's brief. Exhibit D is identified as "OIRYA-AMDC - Documents Produced in the Middle District," Exhibit E is identified as "AUBURN [Bates No.]," and Exhibit F is identified as "BYU Confidential Documents." None of these documents were filed into the record.

Not only did Plaintiff fail to submit many of the evidentiary materials on which he relies, but his brief fails to conform to the Court's Scheduling Order regarding proper citations to evidentiary materials. First, some factual allegations have no citation at all. Second, when Plaintiff does include citations, he mostly cites to the page only with no line cite. Third, some of the citations are completely improper, as in one example when he attempts to support a factual allegation by citing to a discovery request (not even a response) that he propounded to Defendants.¹ See Doc. 99 at 12. Fourth, the vast majority of Plaintiff's evidentiary citations in his brief refer to the "OIRYA-AMDC" documents that have not been submitted to the Court, making it impossible for the Court to determine whether the cited materials support his factual allegations. Plaintiff occasionally cites to documents produced to him with the Bates-label prefixes "AUBURN" or "BYU Confidential Information." Again, however, Plaintiff submitted none of these documents with his evidentiary materials. Some of the cited pages may have been produced by Defendants in support of their motion; some may not have. However, the Court isunwilling to comb through more than 1000 pages of Defendants' evidentiary materials to find, for example, AUBURN 00034. See Pl.'s Br. at 19. As Plaintiff was advised in the Uniform Scheduling Order, the failure to submit evidentiary materials and make specific page-line references will result in the evidence not being considered. Doc. 22 § 2.

When a party files an affidavit in support or opposition to summary judgment, Rule 56(e) requires that the affidavit "be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible into evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on the matters stated." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, personal knowledge can be established by showing that the witness was in a physical position to see, hear, or otherwise perceive the matters to which the testimony relates. See Fed. R. Evid. 602. In this case, Plaintiff's declaration is replete allegations not based on personal knowledge, along with arguments and conclusory statements with no supporting factual basis. See generally Doc. 99-1.

As a result of the scant evidentiary submissions and the improper assertions in Plaintiff's declaration, the Court has considered only a limited number of factual assertions in Plaintiff's brief and declaration. See Pye v. Fifth Generation, Inc., No. 14CV493, 2016 WL 9046788, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2016) (stating that a district court need not consider materials that are not properly cited and may decline to consider...