Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00926/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00926-20/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.

AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada

corporation,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-926-PHX-SMM

ORDER

In the Proposed Pretrial Order, the parties designated certain witnesses who would

appear via videotape deposition (Doc. 132). At the Final Pre-Trial Conference, the Court

agreed to address and rule on the parties’ objections to the designated testimony prior to

trial so that the parties could edit the videotapes of the depositions in accordance with the

Court’s order. 

In reviewing the six depositions provided by the parties, the Court notes that the

depositions address one primary subject, Defendant’s record keeping and retention

policies. The testimony on this subject is extremely repetitive, cumulative, and fractious. 

Furthermore, the objections often occur within the middle of questions and are devoid of

the necessary context for the Court to make an informed ruling. 

Defendant has suggested that the solution is a proposed stipulation regarding the

lost records which has yet to be finalized. It appears that the records were lost or

destroyed and the Court has already entered orders on this subject as the case progressed. 

Indeed, the Court twice denied Plaintiff’s request for an adverse inference. At the

Case 2:06-cv-00926-SMM Document 155 Filed 04/08/09 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

- 2 -

summary judgment stage, the Court determined that an adverse inference was not

warranted since the issue of evidence spoliation was a discovery offense, and Plaintiff had

never raised the issue during the discovery period (Doc. 115). Likewise, the Court denied

Plaintiff’s motion in limine for the same reasons (Doc. 142). Going forward at this

juncture would lead to inconsistent rulings on the objections because of the overlapping

questions.

Therefore, the Court orders the parties to attempt to finalize a stipulation regarding

the lost records. If the parties are unable to reach such a stipulation, the Court will allow

one witness to be called to testify about Defendant’s record keeping and retention

policies. The parties shall be responsible for designating that person and supplying the

Court with a complete transcript of that person’s deposition, highlighting in yellow those

portions to which objections are made. Accompanying the transcript shall be a separate

document designating the pages and line numbers to be read or shown via video to the

jury and noting counsel’s objections and giving the reason for the objections. 

Moreover, should Plaintiff wish to provide additional witnesses’ testimony in

objection, Plaintiff shall provide the Court with specific reasons why such testimony is

necessary and how it differs from the testimony of the witness designated by the parties. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by Friday, May 1, 2009, the parties shall

submit a stipulation regarding the lost records to the Court, or alternatively, designate one

witness to testify regarding Defendant’s record keeping and retention policies. The

complete deposition testimony of any such designated witness shall be provided to the

Court with the portions objected to highlighted in yellow. A separate document shall

accompany the transcript indicating the pages and line numbers to be read or shown to the

jury and noting counsel’s objections and reasons for the objections.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should Plaintiff wish to use additional

witnesses’ testimony in objection, Plaintiff must provide the Court with the reasons why

Case 2:06-cv-00926-SMM Document 155 Filed 04/08/09 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

- 3 -

such testimony is necessary and how it differs from the testimony of the witness

designated by the parties by Friday, May 1, 2009. 

DATED this 8th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-00926-SMM Document 155 Filed 04/08/09 Page 3 of 3