Salcedo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

ALTAGRACIA SALCEDO,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-1141-KCD-NPM

v.

THE DISTRICT BOARD OF

TRUSTEES SOUTHWESTERN

STATE COLLEGE, FLORIDA,

THE DISTRICT BOARD OF

TRUSTEES FOR FLORIDA

SOUTHWESTERN STATE

COLLEGE,

Defendant,

/

ORDER

Not long after this case started, the Court entered a Case Management

and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 16.)1 That order laid out a straightforward, step-

by-step procedure for summary judgment briefing: if a party moves for

summary judgment, it must list the material facts in numbered paragraphs.

(Id. at 5.) If the opposing party disagrees, it must mirror those numbered

paragraphs, admitting or denying each one with pinpoint citations to the

record. (Id.)

In May 2026, Defendant moved for summary judgment. It followed the

rules. (See Doc. 28.) Plaintiff filed a response but left the rulebook behind.

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, case history, and

alterations have been omitted in this and later citations.

(Doc. 31.) Instead of matching Defendant’s numbered paragraphs, Plaintiff

submitted a sprawling narrative of facts. That approach leaves the Court to

sift through the record and guess what remains in dispute. Not going to

happen.

This Court’s scheduling order is not a mere suggestion. The point-by-

point procedure exists for a highly practical purpose: it eliminates guesswork

and identifies the contested facts so we can apply the law appropriately.

Anything less turns summary judgment into “the proverbial search for a

needle in the haystack.” Libel v. Adventure Lands of Am., Inc., 482 F.3d 1028,

1032 (8th Cir. 2007). “Courts have neither the duty nor the time to

investigate the record in search of an unidentified genuine issue of material

fact to support a claim or defense.” Id.; see also United States v. Dunkel, 927

F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles

buried in briefs.”).

Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s clear directives, her

response brief (Doc. 31) is STRICKEN. Plaintiff has until July 16, 2026, to

try again. The new response must strictly follow the scheduling order. If it

does not, the Court will strike the filing for a second time and consider

Defendant’s motion entirely unopposed.

ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 13, 2026.

Kyle C. Dudek

United States District Judge