Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02954/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02954-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gregory S. Hawn, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Executive Jet Management, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2954-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion Requesting an Order that Plaintiffs’

Responses to Two Statements of Fact in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment Not Be Deemed Admitted (Doc. 145). On July 10, 2007, this Court struck several

documents from the docket because of counsels’ noncompliance with the Local Rules of this

Court, specifically, LRCiv. 7.1(c). Notwithstanding, counsel has once again failed to comply

with the same Local Rule. As was previously articulated, in order for CM/ECF to function

at its highest potential and for Chambers to perform efficiently and productively, the

documents filed with the Court must be created using a word processing program and must

conform to the Rules of the Court. For further explanation, see Doc. 119.

Furthermore, counsel has failed to comply with LRCiv. 7.1(b)(2) which provides that,

“In civil cases when a party requests specific relief, except for dismissal or summary

judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) or 56, the party must lodge with

the Clerk a separate proposed order.” LRCiv. 7.1(b)(2). Counsel has not provided the Court

Case 2:04-cv-02954-SMM Document 147 Filed 10/19/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 1In particular, LRCiv 7.1(b)(2) and (c).

- 2 -

with a proposed order with respect to the specific relief requested in the motion currently

before the Court. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion Requesting an Order that

Plaintiffs’ Responses to Two Statements of Fact in Support of Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment Not Be Deemed Admitted (Doc. 145) is struck from the record with

leave to re-file in accordance with the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona.1

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all documents struck herein shall be re-filed in

accordance with the Local Rules no later than Friday, October 26, 2007.

DATED this 19th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02954-SMM Document 147 Filed 10/19/07 Page 2 of 2