the rule is to distill to a manageable volume the matters that must be reviewed by a court undertaking to decide whether a genuine issue of fact exists for trial. It is designed to prevent a district court from engaging in the proverbial search for a needle in the haystack." Jones v. United Parcel Service, 461 F.3d 982, 990 (8th Cir.2006) (quoted case omitted; discussing local rule similar to 4.01(E)). Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 4.01(E) has complicated the Court’s efforts to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist. To the extent it has been able to discern the same, the Court will note whenever plaintiff properly disputes a fact and the ground for her dispute. See Huckins v. Hollingsworth, 138 Fed.Appx. 860, 862 (8th Cir.2005) (unpublished per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Northwest Bank & Trust Co. v. First Ill.
holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion when considering the reactive nature of the federal claim holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking fact statements that did not comply with the local rules holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying local rules that excluded some of the material facts offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying its own local rules even though those rules prevented it from considering some facts improperly alleged by plaintiffs that might have been relevant to the summary judgment motion holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action