Wells v. Hi Country Auto Grp.
| Decision Date | 08 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 12CV00828 WJ/KBM |
| Parties | AMANDA WELLS, Plaintiff, v. HI COUNTRY AUTO GROUP d/b/a HI COUNTRY CHVROLET, a New Mexico Corporation, and JEFF THOMAS, a natural person Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Exhibits and Facts, filed October 31, 2013 (Doc. No. 189). Having considered the parties' arguments and the applicable law, the Court finds that Defendants' motion is well-taken and, therefore, is GRANTED.
This is a sexual harassment lawsuit based upon an allegedly hostile work environment and retaliatory termination. On September 5, 2013, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 137). In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants set forth fifty-four Undisputed Material Facts ("DMF's"). For each DMF, Defendants cite to a specific portion of the record supporting that fact. In her Response, Plaintiff stated that nearly all of the DMF's were disputed, and she introduced additional facts regarding her claims. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's response to the DMF's and her introduction of her own facts failed to comport with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and D.N.M. LR-Civ 56.1(b). Further, Defendants requestthat this Court strike Exhibits 1-5 to Plaintiff's Response, because Defendants argue that these exhibits are improper.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits the court to "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense." The Tenth Circuit reviews a district court's decision on a motion to strike summary judgment declarations for abuse of discretion. See S.E.C. v. Smart, 678 F.3d 850, 856 (10th Cir. 2012).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) outlines the proper procedure for attacking facts provided by a movant and supporting additional facts provided in a response to a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) provides:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) provides that when a party fails to properly address another party's facts or fails to properly support their own facts, the Court has several options, including: 1) giving the party an opportunity to cure the defect; 2) considering the fact(s) undisputed; 3) granting summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials demonstrate the movant is entitled to it; and 4) issuing any other appropriate order. The Local Rules of this Court provide further detail on the proper procedure for attacking and supporting facts in a motion for summary judgment. "A party opposing the motion must file a written memorandum containing a short,concise statement of the reasons in opposition to the motion with authorities." D.N.M. LR CIV 56.1(b). "The Response must contain a concise statement of the material facts cited by the movant as to which the non-movant contends a genuine issue does exist." Id. "Each fact in dispute must be numbered, must refer with particularity to those portions of the record upon which the non-movant relies, and must state the number of the movant's fact that is disputed." Id. "All material facts set forth in the Memorandum will be deemed undisputed unless specifically controverted." Id. Id. The Tenth Circuit has explicitly found that Rule 56.1(b) is consistent with the goals of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. See Smith v. E. New Mexico Med. Ctr., 72 F.3d 138, *4 (10th Cir. 1995) (unpublished) ().
As an initial matter, Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Strike relies heavily on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986). Celotex, Plaintiff contends, requires a party responding to a motion to summary judgment to submit all of the evidence they possess to support their case. The Court believes that Plaintiff's argument is based upon an incorrect reading of Celotex. However, assuming Plaintiff is correct about Celotex's command for a nonmovant to provide all of their evidence when responding to a motion for summary judgment, there is nothing in Celotex or its progeny that states that a partyis not bound by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) or local court rules when presenting all of its evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff's arguments based upon Celotex are unpersuasive.
As detailed further below, Plaintiff's response to the DMF's is flawed in a number of ways. First, Plaintiff generally denied portions of the DMF's without providing a citation to the record for her dispute of specific facts. This is impermissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and D.N.M. LR CIV 56.1(b). See Smith, *4 ( that a plaintiff's failure to provide a "concise statement of their material disputed facts" and to "specifically controvert any of [D]efendants' claimed undisputed material facts" "def[ied] Local Rule 56.1(b)."). Further, Plaintiff disputed a number of DMF's which were direct quotes from Plaintiff's own deposition testimony1. The Court is perplexed as to Plaintiff's good faith basis for disputing the direct quotes from her own testimony, because based upon a review of Plaintiff's deposition, she did in fact make each of the statements outlined in the DMF's. There is no evidence that the Court was provided with an incorrect copy of Plaintiff's testimony or that there was any other problem with accepting Plaintiff's testimony. Therefore, Plaintiff disputing her own testimony does not appear to be "genuine." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Finally, Plaintiff's responses to the DMF's were interspersed with additional facts, making it difficult for both Defendants and the Court to determine what was intended to be responsive to the DMF's and what was intended to be additional facts. Plaintiff again failed to follow the procedure set forth in D.N.M. LR CIV 56.1(b) by not lettering each additional fact. Plaintiff's own Response to the Motion to Strike states that she wasconcerned that Defendants did not include certain facts in the DMF's and thus, provided additional facts in support of her own argument. "That a statement of fact omits related facts does not dispute the fact asserted, and does not specifically controvert the fact or facts asserted." Skyline Potato Co., Inc. v. Hi-Land Potato Co., Inc., 909 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1233, n. 4 (D.N.M. 2012) (citing D.N.M.LR-Civ. 56.1(b). Thus, the additional facts should have been put forth in a separate portion of Plaintiff's response instead of intermixed with Plaintiff's response to the DMF's.
Plaintiff fell victim to a common misstep for those responding to motions for summary judgment; instead of focusing on the actual factual allegations in the DMF's, Plaintiff focused on the import of those factual allegations. Obviously Plaintiff is entitled to make a legal argument regarding the effect of the DMF's, but those arguments do not create a dispute of fact. Plaintiff failed to consider whether the factual allegation within each DMF was literally true, rather, she was too concerned with making an argument that she refused to admit even the most blatantly undisputed facts. Even if light of these flaws, the Court undertook the time consuming task of determining whether there was a genuine dispute as to any of the DMF's. This process was made all the more arduous by Plaintiff's failure to follow the federal and local rules regarding responses to motions for summary judgment. Below is the Court's analysis of each of the DMF's and Plaintiff's Response.2
Plaintiff generally denies DMF's 8-24 regarding her work environment at Hi Country andin support of her dispute directs the Court to her "evidence summaries" attached as Exhibits 1-5. The Court will address the impropriety of these evidence summaries in a separate section of this opinion. Plaintiff's general denial is insufficient, because it does not direct the Court to specific facts upon which Plaintiff bases her dispute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Further, even if the Court were to consider the evidence summaries, they do not directly respond to DMF 8-24. The Court cannot fathom a good faith basis for Plaintiff's dispute of DMF's 8-24 because these DMF's are her own words. Accordingly, the Court will consider DMF's 8-24 undisputed.
Plaintiff also generally denies DMF's 25-33, and later addresses some, but not all, of these DMF's specifically3. Plaintiff submits additional facts that are relevant to, but do not directly dispute DMF's 25-33. In addition to her general denial, Plaintiff alleges that DMF 25 which states that Kevin Szura made the decision to transfer Plaintiff is false,...
To continue reading
Request your trial