Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01347/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01347-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

1

A copy of the general order is available on the District of Arizona’s website.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dennis Marlowe, et ux., 

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

Pinal County, et al., 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1347-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

Having preliminarily reviewed the defendants’ Separate Statement of Facts

Supporting Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. #50), the Court finds that the

document should be stricken from the record with leave to refile.

First, the defendants have failed to comply with the District of Arizona’s

General Order 04-26, which implements §205(c)(3) of P.L.107-347, the EGovernment Act of 2002, by failing to delete personal identifiers from the exhibits. 

See e.g., page 5 of the deposition of Dennis Marlowe, Exhibit 4. General Order

04-26 provides in relevant part that “effective January 17, 2005, the following

personal identifiers must either be excluded or partially redacted from any

document filed in a civil or criminal case, whether filed in paper or electronic form:

Social Security Numbers to the last four digits; ... dates of birth to the year.”1

 The

Case 2:06-cv-01347-PGR Document 51 Filed 09/05/07 Page 1 of 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

2

 The parties are advised that the capitalization of the parties’ names in

the caption of a document filed with the Court violates LRCiv 7.1(a)(3).

- 2 -

defendants shall review all of their exhibits for compliance with General Order 04-

26 prior to refiling their statement of facts.

Second, the defendants’ deposition exhibits are not properly authenticated. 

See Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2002). The

defendants shall properly authenticate all of their exhibits prior to refiling their

statement of facts. The parties are advised that the Court will not consider

unauthenticated documents in resolving the summary judgment motion. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ Separate Statement of Facts

Supporting Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. #50) is stricken from the record

in its entirety.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants shall file their Amended

Separate Statement of Facts Supporting Motion for Summary Judgment in

compliance with this Order no later than September 12, 2007.2

DATED this 5th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01347-PGR Document 51 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 2