Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00926/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00926-8/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

1

This document is referred to as “Objections Addendum” for the remainder of this

Order.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

AutoZone, Inc., a Nevada corporation,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 06-CV-0926-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s

(“EEOC”) Motion to Strike Portions of documents submitted with Defendant AutoZone,

Inc.’s (“AutoZone”) Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgement. (Dkt. 96.)

BACKGROUND

AutoZone filed its Motion for Summary Judgment and a corresponding Statement of

Facts on November 1, 2007. (Dkt. 79.) After an extension of time was granted, the EEOC

filed its Response (Dkt. 90), its objections to AutoZone’s Statement of Facts1

 (Dkt. 89), and

a separate Statement of Facts in support of the EEOC’s Response. (Dkt. 91.) Thereafter, on

December 21, 2007, AutoZone filed its Reply (Dkt.93) with a separate document objecting

Case 2:06-cv-00926-SMM Document 102 Filed 06/19/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

to the EEOC’s Statement of Facts. (Dkt. 94.) The EEOC filed the instant motion on

February 7, 2008.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to the Local Rules of this Court, Response memoranda 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, citations to the record in

support of these disputes, and any new facts they wish to offer in opposition. 

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. 

LRCiv 56.1(b)(emphasis added) . These disputes include any objections the nonmovant has

with the moving party’s statement of facts. LRCiv. 7.2(m)(2). 

An objection to the admission of evidence offered in support of . . . a motion

must be presented in the objecting party’s . . . response to another party’s

separate statement of material facts[] and not in a separate motion to strike or

other separate filing.

The non-movant’s Response shall not exceed 17 pages, excluding attachments and the

required responsive statement of facts discussed above. LRCiv. 7.2(e). 

Reply memoranda are limited to 11 pages, exclusive of attachments. LRCiv. 7.2(e).

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 arguments

or facts made in the Response or its supporting 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).

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00926-SMM Document 102 Filed 06/19/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

DISCUSSION

A. AutoZone’s Reply is in Violation of the Local Rules

AutoZone filed the “Objections Addendum” with its Reply. (Dkt. 94.) In this

document, AutoZone makes several generalized allegations criticizing statements made by

the EEOC in the Statement of Facts filed in support of its Response. It also contains specific

objections to statements made and exhibits referenced in the EEOC’s separate Statement of

Facts.

Local Rule 7.2 went into effect December 1, 2007. The Reply and the “Objections

Addendum” were filed on December 21, 2007 therefore, LRCiv. 7.2 governs all documents

filed thereafter. The Rule 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 of the “Objections Addendum” is clear: dispute statements and

arguments made in the Response. The instant motion does fall within the purview of LRCiv

7.2(m)(2), and thus, these disputes should have been included in the Reply memorandum

itself. The entire Response, including objections, must conform to the page limits of Local

Rule 7.2(e).

B. The EEOC’s Response is in Violation of the Local Rules

Filed contemporaneously with its Response, were 1) EEOC’s Objections to

AutoZone’s Separate Statement of Facts (Dkt. 89) and 2) a Separate Statement of Facts (Dkt.

91). Local Rule 56.1(b) (see above) requires that a party responding to a motion for

summary judgment file a single document containing any disputes or objections the party has

with the movant’s statement of facts and any new facts that would preclude judgment against

the nonmovant. As the EEOC failed to comply with this Rule, its Response is in violation

of the Local Rules.

CONCLUSION

In light of the reasons set forth above,

Case 2:06-cv-00926-SMM Document 102 Filed 06/19/08 Page 3 of 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

2

The motion is granted insofar as AutoZone’s Reply will be stricken, the motion is

denied in all other parts.

3

The Parties are advised to review the Federal and Local Rules, as well as relevant

Ninth Circuit authority, regarding setting forth new facts and arguments in Responses and

Replies to Motions for Summary Judgment.

4

The Rule 16 Order (Dkt.17) read, “. . .in the event of a discovery dispute, the

parties shall contact the Court to request a telephonic conference prior to filing any

discovery motions.” (emphasis in original) As the Court was not contacted prior to filing of

this motion, it is summarily denied.

- 4 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING2 in part and DENYING in part the

EEOC’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 96) as follows:

1) IT IS ORDERED STRIKING the EEOC’s Response and corresponding

documents (Dkt. 89-91) without prejudice with leave to re-file in accordance with the Federal

and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. The amended Response and Separate Statement of Facts

shall be filed no later than July 1, 2008.

2) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED STRIKING AutoZone’s Reply and

corresponding document (Dkt. 93-94) without prejudice with leave to re-file in accordance

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

Statement of Facts shall be filed no later than July 15, 2008.

3) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the EEOC’s Motion For Leave to

File a Surreply.3

 (Dkt. 96.)

4) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the EEOC’s Motion to Exclude

Defendant’s 2002 Employee Handbook from Evidence.4 (Dkt. 96.)

DATED this 18th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-00926-SMM Document 102 Filed 06/19/08 Page 4 of 4