Wood et al v. Betlach et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying 36 Motion to Strike ; granting 41 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/12/2012.(NVO)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Plaintiffs,

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. CV12-8098-PCT-DGC

Flint Wood, et al.,

ORDER

v.
Thomas Betlach, Director of the Arizona
Health Care Cost Containment System, and
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the United
States Department of Health and Human
Services, in their official capacities,
Defendants.

16

Defendant Kathleen Sebelius, as Secretary of the United States Department of

17

Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”), has filed a motion for summary judgment

18

(Doc. 29) and lodged a memorandum in support of the motion for summary judgment

19

and in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 30). Plaintiffs

20

have filed a motion to strike the motion for summary judgment and portions of the

21

supporting memorandum pursuant to Local Rules of Civil Procedure 7.2(m) and 7.2(i),

22

on the ground that the Secretary violated Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1 by failing to

23

file an accompanying statement of facts. Doc. 36. The Secretary has responded to the

24

motion to strike (Doc. 42), and has filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a separate

25

statement of facts (Doc. 41). The Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion to strike and grant

26

the Secretary leave to file a separate statement of facts.

27

The Secretary explains that she inadvertently failed to submit a separate statement

28

of facts with her summary judgment motion. Doc. 42, at 3. She argues, however, that

1

Plaintiffs cannot identify any prejudice from her failure to file a statement of facts earlier,

2

as the administrative record was filed just one day after her motion (Docs. 32, 33, 34),

3

and her legal memorandum (Doc. 30) identifies the portions of the record cited in support

4

of her position.

5

sufficient citations to the record. Granting Plaintiffs’ motion to strike would only result

6

in duplicative filings and unnecessarily prolong this litigation.

Id.

The Court agrees that the Secretary’s memorandum contains

7

IT IS ORDERED:

8

1.

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike (Doc. 36) is denied.

9

2.

Defendant Sebelius’s unopposed motion for leave to file a separate

10
11

statement of facts (Doc. 41) is granted.
Dated this 12th day of July, 2012.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-