Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03032/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03032-12/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

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Creative Networks, LLC and Res-Care,

Inc., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3032-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Leave to File

Surreply Re: Res-Care’s Additional Pleadings (Doc. 120). In the Motion to Strike,

Plaintiff asks the Court to strike Defendant Res-Care’s Exhibits to its Reply in Support of

its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docs. 112-2 to112-7), Response to Plaintiff’s

EEOC’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 113) and Reply to EEOC’s Local Rule 56.1(b)

Response to Defendant’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 114). Additionally, Plaintiff requests

that the Court grant it leave to file a surreply addressing any exhibits or documents not

stricken. Having considered the Motion to Strike, the Court finds as follows. 

BACKGROUND

In the present case, Defendant initially filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 93)

and Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment

(Doc. 94). Then, on May 14, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Response to the Motion for Summary

Case 2:05-cv-03032-SMM Document 126 Filed 12/15/08 Page 1 of 5
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

- 2 -

Judgment (Doc. 103), Statement of Facts (Doc. 104), and Local Rule of Practice 56.1(b)

Response to Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts (Doc. 105). Next, on June 2, 2008,

Defendant responded by filing a Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment

(Doc. 112), Response to Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Facts (Doc. 113), and Reply to

Plaintiff’s Local Rule of Practice 56.1(b) Response to Defendants’ Separate Statement of Facts

(Doc. 114). Plaintiff filed the instant motion on August 12, 2008 (Doc. 120).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Motion to Strike

Under the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to strike may be filed in only

two situations: (1) when the motion to strike is authorized by statute or rule, or (2) when

the motion to strike seeks to strike a filing or submission because it is prohibited by

statute, rule, or court order. LRCiv. 7.2(m)(1). Furthermore, objections to the admission

of evidence submitted in support of or opposition to a motion are not appropriate for a

motion to strike. 

An objection to the admission of evidence offered in support of or

opposition to a motion must be presented in the objecting party’s responsive

or reply memorandum (or, if the underlying motion is a motion for

summary judgment, in the party’s response to another party’s separate

statement of material facts) and not in a separate motion to strike or other

separate filing.

LR Civ. 7.2(m)(2). Similarly, any response to the objection must be included in the reply

memorandum for the underlying motion filed by the responding party, rather than in a

separate responsive memorandum. Id. 

B. Motion for Summary Judgment

Pursuant to the Local Rules of this Court, a party filing a motion for summary

judgment (the moving party) is required to file a statement detailing each material fact

that the party relies on to support its motion. LRCiv. 56.1(a). This statement is to be

filed separately from the motion and memorandum of law. Id. Likewise, the opposing

party must have one statement, filed separate from the memorandum of law, that includes

any disputes the nonmoving party has with the moving party’s statement of facts,

Case 2:05-cv-03032-SMM Document 126 Filed 12/15/08 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

supporting citations to the record, and any new facts they wish to offer in opposition. 

LRCiv 56.1(b).

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 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.

Id. These disputes include any objections the nonmovant has with the moving party’s

statement of facts. LRCiv. 7.2(m)(2). The non-movant’s Response shall not exceed

seventeen pages, excluding attachments and the required responsive statement of facts

discussed above. LRCiv. 7.2(e).

While a Reply memoranda of eleven pages is allowed, the Local Rules do not

authorize a separate Statement of Facts in the Reply as they explicitly do for a Response. 

Id. Should a moving party have any objections or replies to facts or arguments contained

in the Response or its accompanying statement of facts, these “. . . must be included in the

responding party’s reply memorandum for the underlying motion and may not be

presented in a separate responsive memorandum.” LRCiv. 7.2(m)(2).

DISCUSSION 

First, Plaintiff moves the Court to strike several exhibits attached to Defendant’s

Reply brief, including affidavits from Ron Cornelison and Freda Smith (Doc. 112-3 and

112-4) and excerpts from the deposition transcripts of Ron Cornelison, Deena Ombres,

and Freda Smith (Doc. 112-5 to 112-7). Plaintiff argues that these exhibits should not be

considered by the Court because they represent new evidence that Plaintiff has had no

opportunity to address (Doc. 120, 2-3). In making this argument, Plaintiff relies heavily

on Provenz v. Miller, where the Court stated, “Where new evidence is presented in a

reply to a motion for summary judgment, the district court should not consider the new

evidence without giving the [non-] movant an opportunity to respond.” 102 F.3d 1478,

1483 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied 522 U.S. 808 (1997) (quoting Black v. TIC Inv. Corp.,

Case 2:05-cv-03032-SMM Document 126 Filed 12/15/08 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

900 F.2d 112, 116 (7th Cir. 1990)). Although Defendant allegedly had this evidence at

the time it filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff contends Defendant waited

until its Reply motion to offer it in an attempt to preclude Plaintiff from addressing the

new exhibits (Doc. 120, 2:12-20). As a result, the exhibits should be stricken, or at the

very least, Plaintiff given an chance to respond using a surreply (Id. 3:21-27, 4:7-12).

There is no dispute that a party may not file “new” evidence with a reply and then

deprive the opposing party of an opportunity to respond to the new evidence. Provenz,

102 F.3d at 1483. The Court has examined the challenged exhibits and concludes that

they do not constitute new evidence. Rather, they rebut arguments first raised by Plaintiff

in its opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Consequently, the

submissions were proper and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike as it pertains to the specified

exhibits is denied.

Second, Plaintiff moves the Court to strike Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff

EEOC’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 113) and Defendant’s Reply to EEOC’s Local Rules of

Practice 56.1(b) Response to Defendant’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 114). Plaintiff

contends that these documents are in fact supplemental summary judgment replies, and as

such, are prohibited by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the Local Rules

which provide for the filing of a single eleven-page Reply (Doc. 120, 4:15-21). Plaintiff

argues that the two documents are attempts by Defendant to make further legal and

factual arguments in support of its summary judgment motion (Id. 5:10-27). According to

Plaintiff, any such argument must be contained in the Reply filed by Defendant (Id. 5:28-

6:3). 

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2 specifically prohibits “a separate responsive

memorandum” to make “any objections or replies to arguments or facts made in the

Response.” LRCiv. 7.2(m)(2). The purpose behind Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff

EEOC’s Statement of Facts and Defendant’s Reply to EEOC’s Local Rules of Practice

56.1(b) Response to Defendant’s Statement of Facts is to dispute statements and

arguments made in the Plaintiff’s Response. The instant motion does fall within the

Case 2:05-cv-03032-SMM Document 126 Filed 12/15/08 Page 4 of 5
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

1

 The motion is granted insofar as Defendant Res-Care’s Response to Plaintiff’s

EEOC’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 113) and Reply to EEOC’s Local Rule 56.1(b) Response

to Defendant’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 114) will be stricken. The motion is denied insofar

as Defendant Res-Care’s Exhibits to its Reply in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment will not be stricken (Docs. 112-2 to 112-7).

2

 The parties are advised to review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local

Rules for this district, and relevant Ninth Circuit authority regarding setting forth new facts

and arguments in Responses and Replies to summary judgment motions. 

- 5 -

purview of LRCiv 7.2(m)(2), and thus, these disputes should have been included in

Defendant’s Reply memorandum. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s

Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Leave to File Surreply Re: Res-Care’s Additional

Pleadings (Doc. 120).1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED STRIKING Response to Plaintiff’s EEOC’s

Statement of Facts (Doc. 113) and Reply to EEOC’s Local Rule 56.1(b) Response to

Defendant’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 114) without prejudice with leave to refile in

accordance with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. The amended Reply

shall be filed no later than Friday, January 9, 2009.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Res-Care’s Exhibits to its Reply in

Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docs. 112-2 to112-7) are not

stricken. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a

Surreply (Doc. 120).2

DATED this 12th day of December, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-03032-SMM Document 126 Filed 12/15/08 Page 5 of 5