Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02704/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02704-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

Edward Kinnally, a single man; Charles

Zovko, a married man filing as an

individual; William Coghlan, a married

man filing as an individual; and Kevin

Sysak, a married man filing as an

individual,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Rogers Corporation, a Massachusetts

corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2704-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Defendant has filed a Motion to Exclude Reports and Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert Staci

Schonbrun (Doc. #131). The parties have filed a Stipulation to Extend the Deadline for

Filing Plaintiffs’ Response and Defendant’s Reply to Defendant’s Motion (Doc. #132).

The Court will deny the Motion as untimely and for failure to comply with local rules of

procedure. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(m) dictates when parties can file a motion to

strike. Local Rule 7.2(m)(1) provides that unless made at trial, a motion to strike may be filed

“only if it is authorized by statute or rule, such as Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f),

26(g)(2) or 37(b)(2)(C), or if it seeks to strike any part of a filing or submission on the

ground that it is prohibited (or not authorized) by a statute, rule, or court order.”

Case 2:06-cv-02704-JAT Document 133 Filed 12/10/08 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 -

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(m)(2) sets out the proper procedure for objecting to

evidence attached to a motion for summary judgment or the response to a motion for

summary judgment. The rule provides:

An objection to the admission of evidence offered in support of

or opposition to a motion must be presented in the objecting

party’s responsive or reply memorandum (or, if the underlying

motion is a motion for summary judgment, in the party’s

response to another party’s separate statement of material facts)

and not in a separate motion to strike or other separate filing.

Any response to the objection must be included in the

responding party’s reply memorandum for the underlying

motion and may not be presented in a separate responsive

memorandum.

Nothing in the local rules allows for Defendant’s to file a Motion to Strike in this

situation. If Defendant had wanted to object to any written submission of evidence filed with

Plaintiffs’ Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant would had to have

done so in its Reply. If Defendant wants to object to the use of Staci Schonbrun’s expert

testimony at trial, then it should file a motion in limine at the appropriate time. If the Court

grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, then this case would not even proceed

to trial; thereby obviating the need for such a trial motion.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING without prejudice Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Reports

and Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert Staci Schonbrun (Doc. #131).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the parties’ Stipulation (Doc. #132) as moot.

DATED this 9th day of December, 2008.

 

Case 2:06-cv-02704-JAT Document 133 Filed 12/10/08 Page 2 of 2