Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02954/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02954-5/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

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment, as well as

the corresponding briefs, Statements of Facts, Responses, and Replies. As noted in a

previous Order, none of the foregoing documents have been created or filed in accordance

with the Local Rules of this Court. Despite the Court’s effort to conserve resources by

avoiding striking the documents, it has in fact become necessary to strike the documents in

order to conserve resources, as well as decide the motion.

LRCiv 7.1(c) provides:

(c) Electronic Documents. Documents submitted for filing in the ECF System

shall be in a Portable Document Format (PDF). Documents which exist only

in paper format shall be scanned into PDF for electronic filing. All other

documents shall be converted to PDF directly from a word processing

program (e.g., Microsoft Word® or Corel WordPerfect®), rather than created

from the scanned image of a paper document. 

LRCiv 7.1(c). 

Case 2:04-cv-02954-SMM Document 119 Filed 07/11/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 1The facts as well as the numbers must correspond.

 2

In particular, LRCiv 7.1(c)

- 2 -

The reason behind this rule is not arbitrary. 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.

Furthermore, counsel is advised to read LRCiv 56.1, and to focus particularly on

sections (a) and (b) as neither statements of facts comply with the rule. Pursuant to LRCiv

56.1, each material fact shall be set forth in a separately numbered paragraph and refer to a

specific admissible portion of the record where the fact finds support. More importantly

however, is the format of opposing counsel’s statement of facts. Pursuant to the Rule, any

party opposing a motion for summary judgment shall file a statement, separate from that

party’s memorandum of law, setting forth: (1) for each paragraph of the moving party’s

separate statement of facts, a correspondingly numbered1

 paragraph indicating whether the

parties dispute the individual statements of fact set forth in that paragraph and a reference

of law, setting forth: (1) for each paragraph of the moving party’s separate statement of facts,

a correspondingly numbered paragraph indicating whether the party disputes the statement

of fact set forth in that paragraph and a reference to the specific admissible portion of the

record supporting the party’s position if the fact is disputed; and (2) any additional facts that

establish a genuine issue of material fact or otherwise preclude judgment in favor of the

moving party. LRCiv 56.1(b). Here, Plaintiffs fail to articulate whether they are disputing

the facts set forth by Defendants, and instead, simply set forth their own set of facts. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. 104) is struck from the record with leave to re-file in accordance with the

Local Rules of the Untied States District Court for the District of Arizona.2

 

Case 2:04-cv-02954-SMM Document 119 Filed 07/11/07 Page 2 of 3
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

 3In particular, LRCiv 7.1(c)

 4

Both LRCiv 7.1(c) and LRCiv 56.1

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all corresponding briefs, Responses, and Replies

(Doc. 101)(Doc. 105) are struck from the record with leave to re-file in accordance with the

Local Rules of the Untied States District Court for the District of Arizona.3

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Statements of Facts (Doc. 96), (Doc. 100),

(Doc.107) are hereby struck from the record. The parties must re-draft and thereafter re-file

their Statements of Facts in accordance with the Local Rules of the Untied States District

Court for the District of Arizona.4

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

accordance with the Local Rules no later than Friday, August 1, 2007.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02954-SMM Document 119 Filed 07/11/07 Page 3 of 3