Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00185/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00185-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

George H. Larson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United Natural Foods West , Inc.; and

Sysco Arizona, Inc.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-185-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 43. Defendant United Natural Foods West, Inc. has

filed an opposition and a request for a continuance under Rule 56(f). Docs. 49. The parties

also have filed multiple motions to strike and a motion to exceed page limits. Docs. 50, 64,

68, 70. The Court will grant the request for a continuance, deny the summary judgment

motion without prejudice, and deny the other motions as moot.

Rule 56(f) grants the Court discretion to order a continuance to enable discovery to

be undertaken by the party opposing summary judgment. Defendant states that it needs to

conduct discovery in order to respond fully to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. Doc.

49 at 15-17. Defendant has presented an affidavit of counsel describing the anticipated

discovery and explaining why the facts sought may be material to issues raised on summary

judgment. Doc. 51. Defendant clearly is entitled to relief under Rule 56(f). See Burlington

N. Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d

767, 773 (9th Cir. 2003) (district courts should grant a Rule 56(f) request “fairly freely”

Case 2:10-cv-00185-DGC Document 90 Filed 12/20/10 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 -

where the summary judgment motion is filed early in the litigation); see also Celotex Corp.

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (summary judgment may be appropriate “after adequate

time for discovery”). The Court will grant Defendant’s Rule 56(f) request and deny

Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice.

The discovery period has now closed. Doc. 33 at 2. The parties shall file any

summary judgment motions by the January 21, 2011 deadline. Id. at 4. The motions shall

comply with Local Rule 7.2, including appropriate page limits, and the memoranda of law

and statements of facts shall comply with the new version of Local Rule 56.1. That rule,

effective December 1, 2010, requires, among other things, that the statement of facts “should

include only those facts that the Court needs to decide the motion.” LRCiv 56.1(a). “Other

undisputed facts (such as those providing background about the action or the parties) may

be included in the memorandum of law, but should not be included in the separate statement

of facts.” Id.

The motions to strike and motion to exceed page limits will be denied as moot. To

avoid improper motions to strike in the future, however, the parties are directed to Local Rule

7.2(m). That rule provides that “[a]n objection to the admission of evidence offered in

support of or opposition to a motion must be presented in the objecting party’s . . . response

to another party’s separate statement of facts[] and not in a separate motion to strike or other

separate filing.” LRCiv 7.2(m)(2) (emphasis added). Defendant’s motion to strike certain

of Plaintiff’s statements of fact (Doc. 50), and Plaintiff’s motion to strike the affidavit of

Duane Lawson (Doc. 68), violate Local Rule 7.2(m). In short, the parties may object to, but

shall not move to strike, evidence they believe to be inadmissible.

Plaintiff’s supplemental statement of facts (Doc. 62) also runs afoul of Local Rule

7.2(m). That rule “do[es] not permit the moving party to submit additional facts in reply.”

Emissions Tech., Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. CV10-0393-PHX-NVW, 2010 WL

4579250, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 4, 2010) (emphasis added). Any objections to the non-moving

party’s responsive statement of facts (and any responses to evidentiary objections asserted

by the non-moving party) may be set forth in a separate reply statement of facts, but that

Case 2:10-cv-00185-DGC Document 90 Filed 12/20/10 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 -

filing may not introduce new facts or evidence. See LRCiv 56.1(m)(2). “It is well

established that issues cannot be raised for the first time in a reply brief.” Gadda v. State Bar

of Cal., 511 F.3d 933, 937 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007).

The Court expects full compliance with the Local Rules. The Court advises, however,

“that before filing documents attacking opposing counsel’s form and procedure, counsel

should consider the substance of the underlying issues and the eventual cost of any proposed

filings to their respective clients.” BNSF Ry. Co. v. Coconino Land & Cattle LLC, No. 07-

8068-PCT-PGR, 2010 WL 4929244, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 30, 2010).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 43) is denied without

prejudice.

2. Defendant’s request for a continuance under Rule 56(f) (Doc. 49 at 15-18) is

granted.

3. The parties shall file any summary judgment motions by January 21, 2011.

4. The motions to strike (Docs. 50, 64, 68) and motion to exceed page limits

(Doc. 70) are denied as moot.

DATED this 20th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00185-DGC Document 90 Filed 12/20/10 Page 3 of 3