Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01210/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01210-5/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

Betty Ann St. George, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a foreign

corporation; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-1210-PCT-LOA

ORDER

After considering the parties' summary judgment briefing on Plaintiffs' claims

of intentional infliction of emotion distress, the Court concludes that additional briefing is

necessary on two issues of law: (1) the appropriate Arizona statute of limitations on a claim

of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (2) whether only expert testimony, e.g., a

physician or psychologist, may create a question of fact that a plaintiff sustained emotional

distress caused by a defendant's conduct and, if not, whether a party or other non-expert

witness may appropriately testify regarding personal opinions, observations, personal

experiences, such as, commonly-known symptoms of emotional distress, such as, nightmares,

caused by a defendant's conduct and/or failure to act when required to do so. 

The Court also finds that many references in Plaintiffs' Statement of Facts

(docket # 363) regarding Plaintiffs Betty Ann St. George, Robbin Billingsley, Dawn

Hixenbaugh, Diane Wickline, Janet Reavis, and Abbey Bromley are not found in the record

Case 3:04-cv-01210-LOA Document 394 Filed 11/30/06 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

1

 Plaintiffs' counsel's failure to reference Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1B or 1C makes the task

of the Court, and that of defense counsel as well, much harder than it should be.

2

 Supra, n. 1.

3 Supra, n. 1.

- 2 -

specifically cited by Plaintiffs' counsel. For example, in paragraph No. 145, Plaintiffs'

Statement of Facts states:

145. St. George has been referred to as "cunt," "bitch," "fat-ass," and

"fucking bitch" on numerous occasions throughout her 6 years of employment

at the Home Depot Store #452 by male associates and male managers. (See St.

George dep. at 133:2-19, 135:7-137:2, St. George Binder, Section C-Pareja,

pp. 1-14, Section D-Machek, pp. 1-10; Joe St. George dep. at 18:1-11,

25:14-18, 26:15-25)

In its significant efforts to independently confirm where in the referenced record Plaintiff

Betty Ann St. George was allegedly called the despicable word "cunt," by whom, when and

in what context, the Court is unable to do so and it is neither inclined nor under any

obligation to search the entire record to find such support, if it does exist. Carmen v. San

Francisco Unified School District, 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001) ("The district court

need not examine the entire file for evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact, where the

evidence is not set forth in the opposing papers with adequate references so that it could

conveniently be found."); Albrechtsen v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System,

309 F.3d 433, 436 (7th Cir. 2002) (“‘Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles in’ the

record.”) (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991)). The C-word

is certainly not found at "St. George dep. at 133:2-19, 135:7-137:2"1

 as represented.

Moreover, the Court is unwilling to go through 14 pages of typed notes, presumably created

by Plaintiff Betty Ann St. George, identified by Plaintiffs' counsel as "St. George Binder,

Section C-Pareja,[2

] pp. 1-14," and 10 pages identified as Section D-Machek,[3] pp. 1-10"

to find the C-word. It is clear, at a minimum, that Plaintiffs' counsel paints too broad a brush

for support of his factual assertions and will give Plaintiffs' counsel the benefit of any doubt

Case 3:04-cv-01210-LOA Document 394 Filed 11/30/06 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 -

that this factual assertion is located somewhere in this filed record. Numerous other examples

can be given but the Court's point has been made.

The Court has given much thought and consideration on how to fairly handle

the shortcomings in Plaintiffs' claims of factual support in the record and the corresponding

impact every possible scenario will have on the Plaintiffs themselves, defense counsel and

their clients. The Court concludes that it is overly harsh to the Plaintiffs to summarily grant

the summary judgment because Plaintiffs' counsel failed to specify where in the record one

might find support for factual claims, as required by LRCiv 56.1(a), because the possibility

certainly exists that the factual assertion may, in fact, be located somewhere else in the filed

record. On the other hand, allowing Plaintiffs to begin anew with the benefit of 20/20

hindsight after the considerable time and expense Defendants have spent in replying to

Plaintiffs' Response (docket # 362) and drafting their Objections to Plaintiffs' Response

(docket # 370) is unduly unfair to defense counsel and their clients.

In light of the purpose of our rules of procedure to reform the “sporting”

theory of trial and to allow for a rational and well-balanced search for truth, Hickman v.

Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 500-01, 67 S.Ct. 385, 388, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947); public policy favoring

resolution of disputes on the merits, Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9

L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (“It is too late in the day and entirely contrary to the spirit of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure for decisions on the merits to be avoided on the basis of such mere

technicalities.”); and the Court can discern no unfair prejudice to Defendants by taking this

action, the Court will enter the order herein. 

The Court will grant Plaintiffs a very limited opportunity to file a

Supplementation of Citation to Factual Record by a date certain, limited solely to the exhibits

already filed in this record while maintaining the same paragraphs and factual assertions in

Plaintiffs' Statement of Facts (docket # 363) with only new and specific references to where

in this record such factual assertions may be found. Said Supplementation shall be limited

to only Plaintiffs Betty Ann St. George, Robbin Billingsley, Dawn Hixenbaugh, Diane

Wickline, Janet Reavis, and Abbey Bromley and only to the claims alleged in Counts One,

Case 3:04-cv-01210-LOA Document 394 Filed 11/30/06 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

- 4 -

Two and Six of the Third Amended Complaint (docket # 47). Any deviation by Plaintiffs

beyond the limited scope of this order will result in the Court ruling upon the pending

dispositive motions with the mindset that if Plaintiffs have not specifically cited where in the

record such factual allegation exists, it must not exist. Defendants shall have an opportunity

thereafter to file objections to Plaintiffs' supplementation.

On the Court's own motion and in the interests of justice,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall file simultaneous but separate

memorandum of law in one document, limited to 5 pages on each subject, on the two issues

of law identified in paragraph one of this order by 5:00 p.m. on December 18, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a

Supplementation of Citation to Factual Record, consistent with this order, by 5:00 p.m. on

December 18, 2006. Defendants may file objections to Plaintiffs' supplementation by 5:00

p.m. on January 5, 2007.

Dated this 29th day of November, 2006.

Case 3:04-cv-01210-LOA Document 394 Filed 11/30/06 Page 4 of 4