Nathan Gardels v. Central Intelligence Agency

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the movant’s brief, “amorphous” statement incorporating by reference its answer and various affidavits did not satisfy the predecessor local rule to Rule 56.1
• explaining that courts have discretion to consider pleadings that do not comply with the local rules
• noting purpose of local rule is to “isolate[ ] the facts that the parties assert are material, distinguish[] disputed from undisputed facts, and identify] the pertinent parts of the record”
• Mar. 31, 2003, letter from Pricing Director, stating that announcement was made on March 20, 2003
• purposes of the rule not met when one party “fails in his statement to specify the material facts upon which he relies and merely incorporates entire affidavits and other materials without reference to the particular facts recited therein” (emphasis added)
• purposes of the rule not met when one party \fails in his statement to specify the material facts upon which he relies and merely incorporates entire affidavits and other materials without reference to the particular facts recited therein\ (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).