Raysene Hall v. Antonio Apodaca, et al.

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

9 Raysene Hall, No. CV-25-00139-TUC-JCH 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Antonio Apodaca, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Docs. 31 and 32 (Doc. 40), and Motion to Strike Docs 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 50 (Doc. 57). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ Motions to Strike Docs. 32, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 50, but denies Defendants’ Motions to Strike Docs. 31, 47, and 48.

19 a. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Docs. 31 and 32 20 On August 29, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Docs. 31 (titled “Affidavit of Plaintiff Raysene Hall by Raysene Hall”) and 32 (titled “Personal Affidavit and Cover Statement of Plaintiff Raysene Hall by Raysene Hall”), arguing the documents do not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56 requirements. (Doc. 40.) Rule 56(c)(4) requires a declaration “be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.” And if a declaration refers to documentary evidence as the source of a factual allegation, the party must attach the relevant documents to the declaration. See Sch.

28 Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1261 (9th Cir. 1993).

1 The Court finds Doc. 31 complies with the above requirements and will deny Defendants’ motion to strike this document. However, Doc. 32 refers to multiple documents that are not attached to the declaration or Plaintiffs’ Response. As such, the court will strike Doc. 32.

5 b. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Docs. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 50.

6 On October 30, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Docs. 43 (“Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment”), 44 (“LRCiv 56.1(b) Separate Statement of Facts in Opposition to Summary Judgment”), 45 (“Motion to Strike Declaration of Officer Apodaca”), 46 (“Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Individual Capacity Claims”), 47 (“Supplemental Disclosure Statement”), 48 (“Motion Under Rule 56(d) for Extension to Conduct Discovery”), and 50 (“Supplemental Memorandum: Factual Clarification and First Amendment Retaliation Claim”). (Doc. 57).

13 Defendants request the Court strike the documents under Rule 12(f) as “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous,” or as not authorized by statute, rule, or court order under the District of Arizona Local Rule of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv.”) 7.2(m)(1). i. Docs. 43 and 44.

Pursuant to this Court’s July 11, 2025, Rand notice, Plaintiff needed to file a Response to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) with a separate Statement of Facts and supporting affidavits or other appropriate exhibits no later than August 11, 2025. (Doc. 30). Plaintiff timely filed two supporting affidavits (Docs. 31–32) and her Response (Doc. 33) on July 25, 2025. But Plaintiff also filed an additional Response (Doc. 43) and Statement of Facts (Doc. 44) on September 19, 2025. The court will strike Docs. 43 and 44 under Rule 12(f) and LRCiv. 7.2(m)(1) because both documents were untimely, and Doc. 43 was duplicative. ii. Doc. 45 Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Strike Declaration of Officer Apodaca” submitted in support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(c)(4). (Doc.

45.) Because Officer Apodaca did not submit said affidavit, the Court will strike Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 12(f).

1 iii. Doc. 46 2 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Individual Capacity Claims, seeking to clarify that the “individually named defendants are sued in both their official and individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1943.” (Doc. 46.) The motion is duplicative of Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, which seeks the same amendments, in part. As such, the Court will strike Doc. 46 under Rule 12(f).

8 iv. Doc. 47 9 Plaintiff filed a “Supplemental Disclosure Statement” pursuant to Rule 26(e). (Doc.

10 47). LRCiv. 7.1.1 requires parties to supplement their disclosure statements if new information is obtained. This filing is procedurally authorized, and the Court will not strike it.

13 v. Doc. 48 14 Plaintiff filed a “Motion under Rule 56(d) for Extension to Conduct Discovery” (Doc. 47), after Defendants filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgement (Doc. 28).

Defendants argue this filing is improper because the Local Rules prohibit discovery motions without prior leave of court. LRCiv. 7.2(j) requires prior consultation with the opposing party before filing discovery motions and the Court’s scheduling order prohibits briefing on the dispute without Court permission (Doc. 26). These rules only apply to disputes that could be properly addressed under Rule 26(c), Rule 37(a), or motions to compel. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension to Conduct Discovery does not fall under this rule, and the Court will not strike it. vi. Doc. 50 Plaintiff filed her “Supplemental Memorandum: Factual Clarification and First Amendment Retaliation,” in which she makes new factual allegations and “asserts a claim for First Amendment retaliation,” “preserv[ing] this claim and incorporat[ing] these allegations into all forthcoming amended pleadings and oppositions to summary judgment.” (Doc. 50). The Court strikes Doc. 50 under Rule 12(f) as redundant to assertions in Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 49) and impertinent, and under LRCiv. 7.2(m)(1) as not authorized. Plaintiff cannot amend her || Complaint without leave of Court and may only respond to a motion for summary judgment as instructed in this Court’s Rand Notice. (See Doc. 30.)

4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motions (Docs. 40 and 57) in part and 6|| striking Docs. 32, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 50.

7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the remainder of Defendants’ Motions || (Docs. 40 and 57).

9 Dated this 31st day of October, 2025.

11 7 A 13 / / John C. Hinderaker 14 _/United States District Judge -4-