Meilstrup v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Jay Meilstrup, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
vs. 	)
)
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Standing Rock 	)
Tribal Council, and Ryan Hertle, 	) 	Case No. 1:25-cv-162
)
Defendants. 	)
On July 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment along with a request for
a hearing. (Doc. Nos. 67 and 70).
On August 3, 2026, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike or Defer Consideration of Motion
for Summary Judgment and to Modify Scheduling Order. (Doc. Nos.,75 and 76). They asserted that
Plaintiff wrongly delayed his deposition for over two months and refused to answer questions when
he finally sat for a deposition, effectively preventing them from completing it. They further asserted
that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was “procedurally insufficient” as it contains false
and/or unsupported factual allegations. 	They requested that the court strike or deny Plaintiff’
Motion for Summary Judgement, or, in the alternative, defer consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment until either 30 days after the parties receive the transcript of Plaintiff’s
deposition or September 30, 2026, whichever is later. They further requested that the court extend
the dispositive motion deadline until September 30, 2026, and convene a scheduling conference to
reset deadlines.
On August 4, 2026, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ Motion to Strike or Defer
Consideration of Motion for Summary Judgment and to Modify Scheduling Order. (Doc. No. 78).
1
Case 1:25-cv-00162-DLH-CRH Document 94 Filed 09/04/26 Page 1 of 3

Therein he intimated Defendants’ request to defer consideration of his Motion for Summary
Judgment was premature as his deposition transcript had been produced and Defendants’ deadline
for responding to his Motion for Summary Judgment was weeks from lapsing. 	However, he did
acknowledged that his deposition had been “left open” or paused.
On August 5, 2026, the court convened a status conference to discuss, inter alia, Defendants’
efforts to complete Plaintiff’s deposition. (Doc. No. 83). On August 6, 2026, the court issued an
order directing the parties to complete Plaintiff’s deposition by September 4, 2026. (Doc. No. 86).
It is the court’s understanding that the parties reconvened on August 27, 2026, to complete
Plaintiff’s deposition.
Meanwhile, on August 7, 2026, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion. (Doc.
No. 85). Therein they asserted Plaintiff did not respond with any meaningful argument to their
motion, reiterated their position that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is procedurally
insufficient, and reasserted that the deadline for dispostive motions should be extended.
On August 7, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Additional Response to
Defendants’ Pending Motions. 	(Doc. No. 86). 	Averring that he hastened to file a response to
Defendants’ Motion to Strike or Defer Consideration of Motion for Summary Judgment and to
Modify Scheduling Order prior to the status conference on August 5, 2026, he requests that he be
permitted to now file an additional, more considered response. On August 14, 2026, he proceeded
to file this additional response. (Doc. No. 88).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Additional Response to Defendants’ Pending Motions
(Doc. No. 86) is GRANTED. Defendants’ Motion to Strike or Defer Consideration of Motion for
Summary Judgment and to Modify Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 75) is GRANTED IN PART AND
2
Case 1:25-cv-00162-DLH-CRH Document 94 Filed 09/04/26 Page 2 of 3

DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Defendants’ request to strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED. Defendants’ alternative request to defer consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Summary Judgment is construed as a request for additional time to file a response, which is
GRANTED. Defendants’ request to extend the dispostive motion deadline (Doc. No. 76) is also
GRANTED. 	Defendants shall have until September 30, 2026, to file a Motion for Summary
Judgment and a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff shall have until
October 21, 2026, to file a response to any Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants and
as well as a reply to Defendants’ response to his Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff’s request
for a hearing on his Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 70) is DENIED without prejudice.
Defendants’ request for a scheduling conference (Doc. No. 76) is DENIED.1
To ensure there is sufficient time to consider Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
any Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants, the court on its own motion shall continue
the final pretrial conference and bench trial. Accordingly, the final pretrial conference on November
24, 2026, shall be rescheduled for April 6, 2027, at 9:00 AM by telephone. To participate in the
final pretrial conference, the parties should call (571) 353-2301 and enter access code 292466149
followed by # when prompted to enter the “Call ID.” The bench trial on December 7, 2026, shall
be rescheduled for April 19, 2027, at 9:00 AM in Bismarck before Judge Hovland (2 days).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 4th day of September, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
1 The court recently contacted to the parties about scheduling a status conference to discuss the parties’ pending
motions and formulate a plan going forward. Unable to find a date that works for everyone, the court has opted to forego a
status conference and instead provide the parties with a briefing schedule.
3
Case 1:25-cv-00162-DLH-CRH Document 94 Filed 09/04/26 Page 3 of 3