Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01401/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01401-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Sandra Dowling and Dennis Dowling,

husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio,

husband and wife; Maricopa County Board

of Supervisors; Maricopa County, a

Municipal entity; John Does I-X; Jane

Does I-X; Black Corporations I-V; and

White Partnerships I-V, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-01401-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike “232” facts not relied on in

support of the Arpaio Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 227) and the Board

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Statement of Facts (Doc. 237). For the

reasons that follow, both Motions are denied. 

I. ARGUMENTS

 In their Motion to Strike, Plaintiffs argue that, although the Arpaio Defendants listed

477 statements in their Statement of Facts in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment,

they only specifically reference 245 of those statements in the body of their Motion.

Case 2:09-cv-01401-JAT Document 254 Filed 02/01/12 Page 1 of 5
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

 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1(a) provides in full:

Separate Statement of Facts. Any party filing a motion for

summary judgment must file a statement, separate from the

motion and memorandum of law, setting forth each material fact

on which the party relies in support of the motion. The separate

statement should include only those facts that the Court needs to

decide the motion. Other undisputed facts (such as those

providing background about the action or the parties) may be

included in the memorandum of law, but should not be included

in the separate statement of facts. Each material fact in the

separate statement must be set forth in a separately numbered

paragraph and must refer to a specific admissible portion of the

record where the fact finds support (for example, affidavit,

deposition, discovery response, etc.). A failure to submit a

separate statement of facts in this form may constitute grounds

for the denial of the motion.

2

 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1(b) provides in full:

Controverting Statement of Facts. Any party opposing a

motion for summary judgment must file a statement, separate

from that party’s memorandum of law, setting forth: (1) for each

paragraph of the moving party’s separate statement of facts, a

correspondingly numbered paragraph indicating whether the

party disputes the statement of fact set forth in that paragraph

and a reference to the specific admissible portion of the record

supporting the party’s position if the fact is disputed; and (2) any

additional facts that establish a genuine issue of material fact or

otherwise preclude judgment in favor of the moving party. Each

- 2 -

Plaintiffs argue that this violates Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1(a).1

 In response, the

Arpaio Defendants argue that, because they are not permitted to submit a statement of facts

with the reply, they included facts in their original statement of facts that they believed might

reasonably be necessary to reply to Plaintiffs’ anticipated arguments. In fact, the Arpaio

Defendants cited to 30 additional facts included in the original statement of facts in their

Reply. The Arpaio Defendants argue that, because these facts actually support their Motion,

they have not violated Local Rule 56.1(a). 

In the Board Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Statement of Facts,

the Board Defendants argue that Plaintiffs violated Local Rule 56.1(b)2

 by filing a

Case 2:09-cv-01401-JAT Document 254 Filed 02/01/12 Page 2 of 5
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

additional fact must be set forth in a separately numbered

paragraph and must refer to a specific admissible portion of the

record where the fact finds support. Each numbered paragraph

of the statement of facts set forth in the moving party’s separate

statement of facts must, unless otherwise ordered, be deemed

admitted for purposes of the motion for summary judgment if

not specifically controverted by a correspondingly numbered

paragraph in the opposing party’s separate statement of facts.

- 3 -

Controverting Statement of Facts in Support of their Opposition to the Board Defendants’

Second Motion for Summary Judgment and a separate pleading entitled Plaintiffs’ Omnibus

Statement of Facts in Support of their Opposition to the Board Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment and the Arpaio Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The Board

Defendants argue that Local Rule 56.1(b) allows the opposing party to file only one

statement in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. In response, Plaintiffs argue

that the Board Defendants read 56.1(b) too narrowly and that their Omnibus Statement of

Facts was submitted in the interests of judicial convenience and ease of review. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS

District courts “have broad discretion in interpreting and applying their local rules.”

Delange v. Dutra Constr. Co., Inc.,183 F.3d 916, 919 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Miranda v.

S. Pac. Transp., 710 F.2d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1983)). 

The Court agrees that neither Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Statement of Facts nor the Arpaio

Defendants’ Statement of Facts strictly comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

However, both Plaintiffs and Defendants have provided a reasonable basis for their failure

to strictly comply with the Local Rule. In this circumstance, to elevate form over substance

and strictly enforce Local Rule 56 by striking material portions of the Parties’ Statements of

Facts would not further the goals of the litigation and the Court finds that it is more important

to consider the merits of the Motions for Summary Judgment, especially where, as here, the

Parties have acted quickly in providing their objections to the material they wish to have

stricken. The Court finds that, instead of striking the objectionable facts, it will be more

judicially efficient at this stage to allow the Parties to submit limited objections to the

Case 2:09-cv-01401-JAT Document 254 Filed 02/01/12 Page 3 of 5
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

 Because Plaintiffs have not yet responded to the additional 30 facts that the Arpaio

Defendants referred to in their Reply, they must be permitted to do so. See Provenz v. Miller,

102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (the district court should not consider new evidence

presented in a reply to a summary judgment motion without giving the nonmovant an

opportunity to respond). It appears that the Board has already filed objections to Plaintiffs’

Omnibus Statement of Facts (Doc. 237) and the Court will take those objections into

consideration when deciding the Motions for Summary Judgment. Further, all Parties shall

be on notice that this Court will not consider any facts not referenced in the Parties’ Motions,

Responses, or Replies. 

4

 Although the Court previously set oral argument on these motions, oral argument

is unnecessary because both parties submitted memoranda discussing the law and facts in

support of their positions, and oral argument would not have aided the Court’s decisional

process. See e.g., Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998); Lake at Las Vegas

Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific. Dev. Malibu Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991).

Further, it is in the Parties’ best interests to have the Motions to Strike resolved before the

Court hears argument on the Motions for Summary Judgment. 

- 4 -

additional facts provided to the Court.3

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike “232” facts not relied on in support

of the Arpaio Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 227) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Board Defendants’ Motion to Strike

Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Statement of Facts (Doc. 237) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument is vacated on Plaintiffs’ Motion

to Strike “232” facts not relied on in support of the Arpaio Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. 227) and the Board Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Omnibus

Statement of Facts (Doc. 237).4

 However, oral argument on the remaining pending Motions

(Docs. 211 and 212) is still set for March 5, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiffs and Defendants shall have 15 days from

the date of this Order to file any objections/disputes to the 30 additional facts referred to in

the Arpaio Defendants’ Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment or the

Case 2:09-cv-01401-JAT Document 254 Filed 02/01/12 Page 4 of 5
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

5

 Any document containing objections/disputes filed with this Court shall be limited

solely to objections/disputes to the facts discussed in this Order. The Parties should not view

this as an opportunity for supplemental briefing on the Motions for Summary Judgment.

- 5 -

Omnibus Statement of Facts if such objection/dispute is not already set forth in the record.5

DATED this 1st day of February, 2012.

Case 2:09-cv-01401-JAT Document 254 Filed 02/01/12 Page 5 of 5