Update (January 16, 2013): Sr. U.S. District Court Judge Richard H. Kyle‘s efficient decision-making, described below in earlier posts, was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in this lawsuit that started with the recall of 143 million pounds of beef (that is, about 290,650 cows, raised, slaughtered, butchered, packaged, and thrown out) (assuming 492 lbs. of beef per cow)).
Update (February 16, 2012): In the post below from last Spring, Minnesota Litigator highlighted Sr. U.S. District Court Judge Richard H. Kyle‘s signature efficiency, cutting off “cross reply briefs” and saving the litigants about $5,000 in legal argument overkill. The dollar amount was an “educated guess.” In the same case (won by the plaintiff on summary judgment last May), Judge Kyle has, again, this week shaved off some expense to the clients by cancelling oral argument on plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees.
In the briefing for this more recent motion, the pretty simple motion apparently cost more than $15,000 for one side in attorneys’ fees. Maybe Minnesota Litigator underestimated the savings back in April by cancellation of the reply briefs.
Original Post (April 21, 2011): Minnesota Litigator has, from time to time, praised pragmatism over the mechanical application of rules and, in the process, noted U.S. District Court Judge Richard H. Kyle’s (D. Minn.) and his practical “cutting to the chase” with admiration.
This week, again, Judge Kyle again manifests basic sense when, in dealing with cross-motions for summary judgment arising from a meat recall and the set-back suffered “up the commercial chain.” Both sides under the rules are entitled to file “reply briefs.” Neither of them will get to file reply briefs. Enough is enough; the facts and law are probably set out plainly in the court file as it is. Judge Kyle probably saved the clients about $5,000 each or so.
(Just to give a sense to readers of the issues to be decided (and, as such, no need to present both sides), here is a brief that sets it out…)