Filed: Feb. 01, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 01, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge. 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
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge. 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 S..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge.
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. 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 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 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 Omnibus Statement of Facts if such objection/dispute is not already set forth in the record.5