Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00712/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00712-12/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

Dalia Spina,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Maricopa County Department of

Transportation, , a Political

Subdivision of Maricopa County,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0712- PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Strike Footnote 2 of Plaintiff’s Revised

Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 131). Defendant asks the

Court to strike Footnote 2 of Plaintiff’s Revised Response because it violates a prior

Order of the Court. 

On October 21, 2008, Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment and

separate statement of facts and Plaintiff responded on December 12, 2008 (Docs. 112,

113, 116, 116-2). On February 2, 2009, Defendant filed its reply (Docs. 117, 118).

Plaintiff then moved to file (and lodged) a surreply on February 26, 2009 (Docs. 119,

120). On April 1, 2009, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion and stuck her lodged surreply

(Doc. 124). On May 19, 2009, the Court denied Defendant’s summary judgment without

prejudice because it found that Plaintiff’s response and Defendant’s reply were missing

important pinpoint citations to the parties’ respective statements of facts (Doc. 125).

Case 2:05-cv-00712-SMM Document 134 Filed 07/10/09 Page 1 of 3
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

 Indeed, the footnote itself violates the Court’s Scheduling Order which prohibits

submissions to the Court from containing footnotes in excess of five lines (Doc. 92). 

- 2 -

The Court then ordered “that no later than June 19, 2009, the parties may refile the

motion for summary judgment, Response and Reply, with pinpoint citations to the

parties’ Statement of Facts. The parties shall not alter their briefing substantively.” (

Id.) (emphasis added).

Pursuant to the Court’s Order, Defendant refiled its motion for summary judgment,

reply, and accompanying separate statements of fact with the requested pinpoint citations

and without any substantive changes (Docs. 126-129). Plaintiff also refiled her response

but her revised response contains substantive changes. (Doc. 130, p. 7 n.2.) In footnote 2

on page 7, Plaintiff reasserts the same arguments she made in her lodged surreply. The

Court previously denied Plaintiff leave to file the surreply. However, Plaintiff “urges the

court to reconsider its decision denying leave to surreply.” (Id.) 

The Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Strike as Plaintiff has clearly violated

the Court’s Order. The Court in its May 19, 2009 Order explicitly instructed the parties

not to alter their briefing substantively. The Court permitted the parties to refile the

motion for summary judgment for the sole purpose of inserting pinpoint citations to the

parties’ respective statements of facts. By adding new material to their response, Plaintiff

has failed to follow the Court’s Order.1

 Furthermore, even if the Court were to construe

Footnote 2 as a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff has offered no grounds warranting

reconsideration of the Court’s denial of a surreply, such as new evidence or an

intervening change in the law. United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.

1997) (citing Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 155, (9th Cir. 1993)). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendant’s Motion to Strike

Footnote 2 of Plaintiff’s Revised Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. 131). 

Case 2:05-cv-00712-SMM Document 134 Filed 07/10/09 Page 2 of 3
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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not consider Footnote 2 when

ruling on the summary judgment motion.

DATED this 10th day of July, 2009.

Case 2:05-cv-00712-SMM Document 134 Filed 07/10/09 Page 3 of 3