Suit against farm advances, but judge has a lesson for students

A federal judge has cleared the way for the University of Maryland‘s Environmental Law Clinic to proceed with its lawsuit against a family-owned chicken farm on the Eastern Shore, but not without berating the students‘ three briefs for their lack of brevity.

Senior Judge William M. Nickerson, in denying both sides’ motions for summary judgment last week in U.S. District Court, took note of the length and annotation of the clinics’ filings: a motion consisting of 48 pages and 341 footnotes, an opposition of 49 pages with 288 footnotes; and a reply that was 24 pages long with 138 footnotes.

“Finally, to the extent that this litigation is intended to be a learning experience for the students from the University of Maryland clinic, I feel obliged to make a comment regarding the briefing submitted on behalf of Plaintiff,” wrote Nickerson, who sits at the federal courthouse in Baltimore. “Submitting briefs near the maximum page limit permitted under the Local Rules but with 767 single-spaced, small-fonted footnotes not only circumvents the spirit if not the letter of the Local Rules, but also makes for less than compelling advocacy. While this style might be appropriate for legal journals that few attempt to read, it is not helpful in the context of litigation.”

Professor Jane F. Barrett, director of the clinic at University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, declined through a spokesman to comment on Nickerson’s critique. However, she did issue a statement on the order itself.

“We are pleased that Judge Nickerson denied Defendant’s Motions to Strike Plaintiff’s experts and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment,” Barrett said. “Although the judge did not grant our Motion for Summary Judgment, it is not unusual in these types of cases for the court to require a trial prior to ruling on the factual and legal issues.”

She added that the plaintiff “remains interested” in settling the case, but will be prepared for trial.

The clinic is no stranger to criticism of its suit on behalf of Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. against farm owners Alan and Kristin Hudson, who raise chickens for Perdue Farms Inc.

In November, Gov. Martin O’Malley wrote a letter to law school Dean Phoebe A. Haddon in which he assailed the “costly” litigation as an “ongoing injustice.” The Maryland Department of the Environment had investigated the underlying allegation and “found no strong evidence” linking bacterial pollution in the Pocomoke River to the Hudsons’ farm, O’Malley wrote.

Haddon wrote back, telling O’Malley she was “uneasy” that he would state his opinion on the merits while the case was in litigation.

“Such statements have the potential to become highly prejudicial, undermining the integrity of the judicial process and the independence of the lawyers’ relationship with their clients,” she wrote. “I urge you to let the judicial process resolve this matter.”