Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02342/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02342-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Douglas G. Scheitlin, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., a Delaware

corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-02342-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff Douglas Scheitlin’s notice of objections (doc. 47),

defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.’s motion to strike (doc. 48), plaintiff’s response

(doc. 51), and defendant’s reply (doc. 54).

Our March, 24, 2009 scheduling order (doc. 21) set a December 11, 2009 deadline to

supplement all discovery, including disclosure of exhibits to be used and witnesses to be

called at trial pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P. Plaintiff filed a notice of objections

shortly after the supplementation deadline because he believed that the 14-day deadline for

objections to the admissibility of exhibits would apply under Rule 26(a)(3)(B), Fed. R. Civ.

P. The objections deadline, however, applies “unless the court sets a different time.” Rule

26(a)(3)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. Our scheduling order set a different time by directing the parties

to resolve admissibility issues by stipulation before trial.

Case 2:08-cv-02342-FJM Document 56 Filed 02/10/10 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

27

28

- 2 -

Defendant moves to strike plaintiff’s notice of objections as unauthorized and

premature. Motions to strike are generally limited to pleadings under Rule 7(a), Fed. R. Civ.

P. LRCiv 7.2(m). A scheduling order misunderstanding is also the sort of issue that should

be resolved through consultation rather than the filing of a motion. We deny defendant’s

motion to strike.

We note that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is pending. The parties are

advised to comply with LRCiv 7.2(m)(2) with respect to any objections to evidence

submitted in support of or in opposition to defendant’s motion. While it will remain on the

docket, plaintiff’s notice of objections will have no effect on defendant’s motion for

summary judgment or the parties’ responsibilities under our scheduling order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED DENYING defendant’s motion to strike (doc. 48).

DATED this 10th day of February, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02342-FJM Document 56 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 2