Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02476/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02476-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Meryl W. Humphrey, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Yuma Visitors Bureau; City of Yuma; Paul

Rogers; Does 1-10, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 07-2476-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a complaint for employment discrimination under the Arizona Civil

Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination Act. Dkt. #1,

Ex. A. Defendant Yuma Visitors Bureau has filed a motion for summary judgment asserting

that Defendant has too few employees to qualify as an “employer” within the meaning of the

applicable statutes. Dkt. #17. 

“If a party opposing [a motion for summary judgment] shows by affidavit that, for

specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may deny

the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(1). Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted an affidavit

identifying specific discovery needed to respond to Defendant’s motion. Dkt. #27. 

Defendant contends that the Court’s expedited briefing schedule for this motion

precludes Plaintiff’s requested discovery. See Dkt. #15, ¶11. When the Court set this

schedule, however, it was not apprised of the discovery issues now raised by Plaintiff’s

Case 2:07-cv-02476-DGC Document 31 Filed 03/11/08 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 -

affidavit. Defendant also contends that is has provided all of the information Plaintiff might

seek in discovery, but Plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery on her own and need not rely

solely on Defendant’s assertions.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff should, in fairness, be accorded a limited time for

discovery on the size of Defendant’s work force. Pursuant to Rule 56(f)(1), the Court will

therefore deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice and afford

Plaintiff two months to complete discovery on this issue. This order will not otherwise

amend the Court’s Case Management Order. Dkt. #15.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s request for discovery (Dkt. #27) is granted. Plaintiff has until

May 9, 2008 to conduct discovery.

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #17) is denied without

prejudice. Defendant may re-file its motion for summary judgment after

May 9, 2008. 

3. Plaintiff’s counsel filed her response late and made other filing errors.

Counsel should familiarize herself with the Court’s electronic filing system

and is reminded to comply with the Court’s local rules, including the rules

governing font size.

DATED this 11th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02476-DGC Document 31 Filed 03/11/08 Page 2 of 2