Giron v. Springboard Incorporated

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Joseph A Giron, et al., No. CV-17-04280-PHX-DLR 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. Springboard Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants.

16 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to strike, which is fully briefed. (Docs. 94- 96.) For the following reasons, the Court shall grant Defendants’ motion.

18 “The Local Rules do not provide for additional exhibits attached to replies in support of summary judgment[.]” EEOC v. Swissport Fueling, Inc., 916 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1015 (D. Ariz. 2013) (citation omitted). In other words, a reply “may not introduce new facts or evidence.” Larson v. United Natural Foods West, Inc., No. CV-10-185-PHX-DGC, 2010 22 WL 5297220, at *2 (D. Ariz. Dec. 20, 2010) (emphasis in original) (citing LRCiv 56.1(m)(2)). In their reply, Plaintiffs submit new exhibits in excess of 130 pages, including a previously unaddressed complaint from an unrelated proceeding. (Docs. 87, 90.)

25 Plaintiffs have not sought leave of Court and have failed to provide Defendants the opportunity to respond to these new facts. Accordingly, 27 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. 94) is GRANTED.

28 // 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall STRIKE Plaintiffs 2|| exhibits (Docs. 87, 90) in support of their reply.

3 Dated this Ist day of November, 2019.

Ls Ue 8 States Dictric Judge _2-