Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-02011/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-02011-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

---

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

Brenda J. Combs, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, Department of

Corrections, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2011-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On March 17, 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. #132. Defendant has filed motions for

reconsideration of that order. Defendant also has filed alternative motions in limine with

respect to evidence that Combs’ office was segregated based on sex. Dkt. ##134-35. The

Court will deny the motions.

A. The Motions for Reconsideration.

 Defendant filed its motions for reconsideration on April 15, 2008, nearly a month

after the Court filed its summary judgment order. See Dkt. ##132, 134-35. Rule 7.2 of the

Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]bsent good cause shown, any motion for

reconsideration shall be filed no later than ten (10) days after the date of the filing of the

Order that is the subject of the motion.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(2). The good cause standard

primarily considers the diligence of the party filing the untimely motion. See Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Defendant does not address

Case 3:06-cv-02011-DGC Document 158 Filed 05/06/08 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 -

the good cause standard or its diligence in meeting the filing deadline set forth in Local Rule

7.2(g)(2). The Court accordingly will deny the untimely motions for reconsideration. See

Baker v. D.A.R.A. II, Inc., No. CV-06-2887-PHX-LOA, 2008 WL 824000, at *1 (D. Ariz.

Mar. 25, 2008) (denying untimely motion for reconsideration where “good cause [had] not

been shown.”) (citing LRCiv 7.2(g)(2)).

B. The Motions in Limine.

Defendant seeks, in the alternative, an order precluding Combs from presenting

evidence that her office was segregated. Dkt. ##134 at 5, 135 at 4. Relying on the arguments

made in its motions for reconsideration, Defendant contends that the evidence of segregation

is irrelevant and would be prejudicial to Defendant and confusing to the jury. Id. Because

the Court will not consider the arguments made in the untimely motions for reconsideration,

the Court will deny the motions in limine. Moreover, Defendant’s contention that the

segregation does not constitute an adverse action as a matter of law is a summary judgment

argument. The time for seeking summary judgment has passed. See Dkt. #111 (setting

dispositive motion deadline of December 21, 2007).

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motions for reconsideration and alternative

motions in limine (Dkt. ##134-35) are denied.

DATED this 6th day of May, 2008.

Case 3:06-cv-02011-DGC Document 158 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 2