Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Signal International, LLC

Filing 376

ORDER - The EEOC's 370 Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS ORDERED that the EEOC's Motion to Strike Signal's 341 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Statement of Uncontested Facts be and hereby is GRAN TED, and those two pleadings are STRICKEN from the record. To the extent the EEOC's motion also seeks to strike Signal's Motion for Modification of Protective Order, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the EEOC's Motion to Strike is DENIED, and the Court will rule on Signal's Motion for Modification of Protective Order by separate order. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/12/2014. (bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KURIAN DAVID, et al.
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Cases:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION “E”

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al.,
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 13-6218
(c/w 13-6219, 13-6220,
13-6221)

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION "E"

Applies To: EEOC v. Signal (12-557)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC")

1

Motion to Strike1 Signal's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,2 Statement of
Uncontested Material Facts,3 and Motion for Modification of Protective Order.4 The
EEOC's Motion to Strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Under Rule 56(c), a summary judgment motion must "cit[e]to particular materials
in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information,
affidavits or declarations, stipulations, admissions, interrogatory answers, or other
materials" to show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(emphasis added). Signal's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Statement of
Uncontested Facts do not point to any materials in the record of the EEOC case to show it
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Skinner v. Hinds County, Miss., 2014 WL
317872, at *3 ("[F]actual assertions must be supported with cites to particular parts of the
record under Rule 56(c)"). The T and U visa affidavits upon which Signal relies are not in
the record of the EEOC case.5 Thus, Signal has failed to comply with Rule 56(c).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the EEOC's Motion to Strike Signal's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment and Statement of Uncontested Facts be and hereby is

1

R. Doc. 370.

2

R. Doc. 341. Signal's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeks a recognition of its
"constitutionally protected right to pursue, at trial, its defense of innocence by questioning those who
accuse it of criminal and other wrongdoing about motive."
3

R. Doc. 341-3.

4

R. Doc. 342. Signal's Motion for Modification of Protective Order asks the Court to apply a
protective order in place in the David v. Signal (08-1220) to EEOC v. Signal (12-557). The protective order
(Doc. 913 in 08-1220) allowed plaintiffs in David to redact certain information from T and U visa
affidavits the Court had previously ordered plaintiffs to produce for use only in the David action. (Doc.
854 in 08-1220). Signal seeks to use the affidavits in the EEOC case.
5

The Court has not yet ruled on Signal's Motion for Modification of Protective Order, thus, the T
and U visa affidavits may only be used in the David case at this time. A protective order in the EEOC case
currently prevents the use of the affidavits in the EEOC case. (See R. Doc. 285).

2

GRANTED, and those two pleadings are STRICKEN from the record.
To the extent the EEOC's motion also seeks to strike Signal's Motion for Modification
of Protective Order, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the EEOC's Motion to Strike is
DENIED, and the Court will rule on Signal's Motion for Modification of Protective Order
by separate order.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 12th day of February, 2014.
___

____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3