Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03032/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03032-18/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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

CREATIVE NETWORKS, LLC, an

Arizona corporation,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3032-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff EEOC’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Strike, or in the

Alternative, Motion for Leave to File Surreply, filed on September 2, 2009 (Doc. 152).

Plaintiff requests that this Court strike (1) Section D(1) of Defendant Creative Networks,

LLC’s Reply in support of summary judgment and (2) Exhibit D of the Reply. Alternatively,

Plaintiff requests that the Court allow it to file a surreply. Defendant Creative Networks,

LLC (“Defendant”) responded to the motion to strike on September 25, 2009 (Doc. 155) and

Plaintiff replied on October 5, 2009 (Doc. 156). Defendant requested oral argument which

was held on December 2, 2009 (Doc. 160). 

Plaintiff argues that Section D(1) of Defendant’s Reply contains a new argument to

which Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond (Doc. 152, 3:24-26). Plaintiff contends

that in Defendant’s opening summary judgment brief, Defendant argued that Kathy Allen

(“Allen”) experienced problems with the change in corporate culture when she started at

Creative Networks in October 2001 (Id. 3:26-4:6, 5:6-6:7). Then in its Reply, Defendant

allegedly shifted its argument to claim that Allen had problems starting when Ron Cornelison

(“Cornelison”) became Creative Networks’ Executive Director in August 2002, some ten

Case 2:05-cv-03032-SMM Document 164 Filed 12/09/09 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

The Court ordered Defendant to file a response regarding the alleged non-disclosure

of Exhibit D, since Plaintiff had first raised the non-disclosure issue in its Reply in support

of its Motion to Strike. Since the issue was not raised until the Reply, Defendant did not

have an opportunity to address it.

- 2 -

months after Allen began working there (Id.). Defendant responds that its argument was

merely a clarification that Allen’s performance issues only arose when Cornelison was hired

to run the company, not when Allen began working, as Plaintiff had alleged (Doc. 155, 2:17-

20, 3:1-5). Defendant argues that it is permissible for a party to rebut arguments first raised

by the nonmoving party in its opposition brief (Id. 5:6-7). 

The Court will not strike Section D(1) of the Reply. The deposition testimony of

Edna Faulkner cited in Defendant’s opening brief shows that the change happened after

Cornelison was hired to run Creative Networks. Therefore, Defendant’s Reply argument was

merely an attempt to clarify when Allen’s performance issues arose, and not a new argument.

Plaintiff also requests that the Court strike Exhibit D of the Reply. Plaintiff alleges

that this exhibit, consisting of over seventy pages of documents, was never disclosed by

Defendant (Doc. 156, 6:4-7). In advance of the oral argument, the Court ordered Plaintiff

to submit proof showing that the documents in Exhibit D were requested by Plaintiff

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and what response, if any, was given by

Defendant to such a document request (Doc. 157). Defendant also was ordered to submit a

brief addressing Plaintiff’s claims of non-disclosure (Id.).1

 

Pursuant to the Court’s Order, Plaintiff submitted copies of its First Request for

Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories, both dated July 3, 2007 (Doc. 159).

In these documents, Defendant is asked to produce “any and all documents relating to, or

supporting, each denial or partial denial in Defendants’ Answer” as well as “any and all

documents . . .relating to the allegations in the Commission’s complaint, Defendant’s denials,

or Defendant’s defenses.” (Id., Ex. 1, 3) The Court finds that such document requests are

overly broad and thus, Defendant cannot be faulted for not producing the documents

comprising Exhibit D. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 requires that document requests

Case 2:05-cv-03032-SMM Document 164 Filed 12/09/09 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

2

At oral argument, the parties disputed whether Bates No. Creative1930 (part of

Exhibit D) had been produced. Plaintiff claimed that this chart was only produced during the

EEOC’s administrative investigation, while Defendant stated that it was part of its Initial

Disclosure Statement produced during the present litigation. Defendant admitted that all

other documents in Exhibit D, other than Bates No. Creative1930, were not previously

disclosed to Plaintiff. As a result, the Court ordered the parties to produce proof regarding

the production of Bates No. Creative1930 within five days of the oral argument. 

On December 4, 2009, Defendant provided the Court with a copy of its March 2, 2007

Initial Disclosure Statement which verifies that Defendant disclosed its termination chart,

referred to in Exhibit D and at oral argument as Bates No. Creative1930, early in this

litigation (Doc. 161). Although originally prepared by Defendant in 2004 in response to a

request for information during the investigative phase, the chart was disclosed again in

March 2007 with the Initial Disclosure Statement (Bates No. Creative128). On December

7, 2009, Plaintiff filed its response regarding Bates No. Creative1930 (Doc. 162). Despite

its representations at oral argument to the contrary, Plaintiff acknowledges that this document

was produced during discovery as Creative128.

- 3 -

“describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff did not serve a specific document request on Defendant

regarding other employees besides Allen who were counseled or disciplined during the

relevant period. 

Moreover, the information regarding the counseling and discipline of other employees

during 2003 was available to Plaintiff during discovery, but Plaintiff chose not to propound

any discovery on this subject. The first document in Exhibit D, Bates No. Creative1930, is

a chart showing the employees disciplined or terminated during the same time period as

Allen (Doc. 150, Ex. D, Bates No. Creative1930). This document was produced as part of

Defendant’s Initial Disclosure Statement, dated March 2, 2007, and placed Plaintiff on notice

that Defendant claimed to have disciplined or terminated as many as seventeen other

employees during the relevant period (Doc. 161).2

 Then on June 14, 2007, Executive

Director Cornelison testified at his deposition that other employees were counseled and/or

terminated for negative attitudes and difficulty adjusting to the corporate culture. Cornelison

even mentioned a few such employees’ names at his deposition. Had Plaintiff wanted to

explore counseling and termination of other employees besides Allen, it had an opportunity

Case 2:05-cv-03032-SMM Document 164 Filed 12/09/09 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 -

to do so through depositions or written discovery before the February 3, 2008 discovery

deadline. However, it chose not to in its July 3, 2007 discovery requests, three weeks after

Cornelison’s deposition. Once Plaintiff took the position in its opposition that Allen was the

only employee disciplined for a negative attitude, Defendant responded by submitting

Exhibit D with its summary judgment Reply. For these reasons, the Court finds that striking

Exhibit D on grounds of non-disclosure is not warranted.

Plaintiff also argues that Bates No. Creative1930, while previously disclosed, should

be stricken because an adequate foundation was not laid (Doc. 156, 6:24-7:10). The Court

also finds this argument lacks merit. This one-page chart was submitted as Item 13 in

Defendant’s Initial Disclosure Statement on March 2, 2007. Defendant also submits a

declaration from Cornelison confirming that the chart was prepared at the request of Plaintiff

during the investigative phase (Doc. 155, Ex. 3).

Plaintiff also has failed to show that its request for a surreply is merited. Although

Plaintiff had information that other employee disciplinary actions were taken during the

relevant time period, Plaintiff found it unnecessary to conduct discovery on this peripheral

issue. Moreover, neither Plaintiff’s complaint nor expressed theories demonstrate that

disparate treatment is a part of Plaintiff’s retaliation claims.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion to Strike (Doc.

152).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File

Surreply (Doc. 152).

DATED this 8th day of December, 2009.

Case 2:05-cv-03032-SMM Document 164 Filed 12/09/09 Page 4 of 4