Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00991/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00991-1/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

LAURA THOMPSON, a single woman;

JUSTINE COX, a single woman; VICKIE

LUTZ and TODD LUTZ, wife and

husband; LACEY CHAINHALT, a single

woman; and NICOLE MORGESON, a

single woman, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

STEVEN H. WIENER, M.D., and

LAUREN WIENER, husband and wife;

STEVEN H. WIENER, MD, P.C., an

Arizona Professional Corporation;

PAMELA S. HENDERSON, M.D, a

single woman; PAMELA S.

HENDERSON, MD, P.C., an Arizona

Professional Corporation; NEW IMAGE

PLASTIC SURGERY L.L.C., an Arizona

limited liability company; DOES I-X; and

CORPORATIONS A-Z., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-00991-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Supplement the Summary

Judgment Record–And–Motion For Expedited Consideration (Dkt.# 160). For the reasons

stated below the motion is granted in part and denied in part. 

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order governing this matter any party having a dispositive

or partially-dispositive motion, was obliged to file the motion by August 5. Although the

Case 2:08-cv-00991-GMS Document 170 Filed 10/15/09 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 -

Court had granted the parties previous extensions on their discovery deadlines to the effect

that discovery was extended through September 13, no party sought the extension of the

dispositive-motion deadline so that it followed the close of discovery. 

In accordance with the Scheduling Order, Defendants filed their Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment on August 5. In that motion Defendants asserted that various claims

against them must be dismissed because their businesses were not of the size to meet the

various applicability thresholds set forth in Title VII. Defendants assert that in their

Response to the motion filed on September 8, Plaintiffs for the first time in this lawsuit raised

the argument that the employees of New Image Skin Spa, L.L.C., (“the Skin Spa”) which has

already been dismissed as a Defendant in this action, should be included in calculating the

number of employees of Defendant New Image Plastic Surgery, LLC (“Plastic Surgery”).

Plaintiffs further allege that if employees of the Skin Spa are counted as employees of

Defendant Plastic Surgery, then New Image Plastic Surgery is subject to Title VII.

Apparently, because discovery remained open until September 13, these particular

allegations were the subject of additional discovery after Defendants filed their Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment. Defendants wish to supplement their motion with discovery that

they have received subsequent to that filing. 

In their Response to Defendant’s Motion to Supplement, Plaintiffs do not dispute that

they raised for the first time in their Response the argument that the employees of the Skin

Spa should be counted as employees of Plastic Surgery for purposes of determining the

applicability of Title VII. They merely argue that Defendants should have foreseen that they

would do so, and that Defendants failed to notice discovery in a sufficiently timely manner.

The Court is not convinced that Defendants should have foreseen this argument pertaining

to a dismissed former Defendant sufficiently in advance so as to conduct discovery thereon

in advance of filing their motion. Further, because any prejudice to Plaintiffs can be

substantially cured by permitting Plaintiffs to file a Sur-Reply, 

Case 2:08-cv-00991-GMS Document 170 Filed 10/15/09 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 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Supplement (Dkt. #

160) and ordering that Defendants file any supplement to its motion by October 23, 2009,

and that Plaintiffs file any desired Sur-Reply by October 30, 2009.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Expedite (Dkt. # 160) is

denied.

DATED this 14th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00991-GMS Document 170 Filed 10/15/09 Page 3 of 3