Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00018/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00018-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

TD Professional Services,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Truyo Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-22-00018-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Defendants Truyo Inc.’s and IntraEdge Inc.’s 

(collectively Defendants) motion to strike Plaintiff TD Professional Services’ amended 

response to motion for summary judgment. The motion to strike is fully briefed.1

(Docs. 206, 207, 208.) For the forthcoming reasons, the Court denies Defendants’ motion

(Doc. 206).

I.

On July 2, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 177) 

without a separate statement of facts—conforming to the requirements set forth in the 

Court’s Scheduling Order, which suspended the requirements of Local Rule of Civil 

Procedure 56.1. (Doc. 51 ¶ 7(c).) On July 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a timely response with 

a separate statement of facts, arguing in part that the Court should deny Defendants’

motion because they failed to comply with LRCiv 56.1. (Doc. 191 at 5 (quoting 

1 Neither party requested oral argument on the motion to strike. After considering the 

briefs, the Court has determined that oral argument is not necessary for its decisional 

process.

Case 2:22-cv-00018-MTL Document 216 Filed 10/15/24 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

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

LRCiv 51.6 (“failure to submit a separate statement of facts in this form may constitute 

grounds for the denial of the motion”).) On August 14, 2024, Defendants timely replied, 

arguing in part that Plaintiff failed to conform to the Court’s Scheduling Order and that 

Plaintiff also failed to properly authenticate the exhibits attached to its separate statement 

of facts. (Doc. 198 at 5-6.) 

One day later, on August 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended response to the 

motion for summary judgment that conformed to the requirements outlined by the Court. 

(Doc. 202; Doc. 51 ¶ 7(c).) In its amended response, Plaintiff excluded the portion 

arguing that Defendants motion should be denied for failure to follow LRCiv. 56.1 and 

included two new declarations for the purpose of authenticating the accompanying 

exhibits. (See Doc. 202; Doc. 202-1; Doc. 202-2.)

That same day, Defendants filed a motion to strike (Doc. 206), arguing that the 

Court should strike Plaintiff’s amended response (Doc. 202) because the amended 

response was untimely and introduced two new declarations—prejudicing Defendants by 

not allowing them an opportunity to reply. (Doc. 206 at 2.)

II.

Under the Court’s Scheduling Order,

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1 is suspended, except for 

subsection (d). The Court will decide summary judgment 

motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 only. The 

parties may not file separate statements of facts or separate 

controverting statements of facts, but instead must include all 

facts in the motion, response, or reply itself. All evidence to 

support a motion or response must be attached to the motion 

or response.

(Doc. 51 ¶ 7(c) (emphasis in original).)

Rule 56(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., outlines the procedures parties must use to support the 

factual positions in their motions. Id. Unauthenticated documents cannot be considered to 

defeat a summary judgment motion. Canada v. Blain’s Helicopters, Inc., 831 F.2d 920, 

925 (9th Cir, 1987). Evidence “must be authenticated by and attached to an affidavit that 

Case 2:22-cv-00018-MTL Document 216 Filed 10/15/24 Page 2 of 4
- 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

meets the requirements of [Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P.,] and the affiant must be a person 

through whom the exhibits could be admitted into evidence.” Id. “If a party fails to 

properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion 

of facts as required by Rule 56(c), the court may give an opportunity to properly support 

or address the fact . . . or issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(1), (4).

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(m) authorizes the Court to strike “any part of a 

filing or submission on the ground that it is prohibited (or not authorized) by a statute, 

rule, or court order.” LRCiv. 7.2(m)(1). “The decision to grant or deny a motion to strike 

is within the [C]ourt’s discretion.” Sunburst Minerals, LLC v. Emerald Copper Corp., 

300 F. Supp. 3d 1056, 1059 (D. Ariz. 2018).

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel mistakenly followed LRCiv 56.1(b), rather than the 

Court’s summary judgment briefing requirements. (See Doc. 191.) As a result, Plaintiff 

accused Defendants of not conforming their brief to the local rule. Unrelatedly, Plaintiff’s 

counsel also did not properly authenticate its supporting exhibits as required by Rule 

56(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. (See Doc. 192.) Because of these issues, Defendants spent precious 

pages of their reply brief responding to Plaintiff’s mistakes. (See Doc. 198.)

Once he realized the mistake, however, Plaintiff’s counsel quickly amended the 

response in an attempt to conform to the Scheduling Order and Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P.2

Nonetheless, Defendants are prejudiced by not having the opportunity to respond to the 

two new declarations. Rather than punish Plaintiff for its counsel’s mistake, the Court 

will provide Defendants an opportunity to file an amended reply so that they are given an 

opportunity to be fully heard.

III.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. 206). Plaintiff’s

amended response to motion for summary judgment (Doc. 202) shall be the operative 

response.

2 The Court takes no position as to whether the evidence attached to the amended 

response is properly authenticated at this time.

Case 2:22-cv-00018-MTL Document 216 Filed 10/15/24 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may file an amended reply no 

later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED affirming the in-person oral argument on 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 177) set for Thursday, November 7, 

2024, at 10:00 AM (Doc. 215).

Dated this 15th day of October, 2024.

Case 2:22-cv-00018-MTL Document 216 Filed 10/15/24 Page 4 of 4