Hall v. Apodaca

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Raysene Hall,
Plaintiff,
v.
Antonio Apodaca, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00139-TUC-JCH
ORDER
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.
a. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Docs. 31 and 32
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.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1261 (9th Cir. 1993).
Case 4:25-cv-00139-JCH Document 59 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
b. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Docs. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 50.
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).
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).
Case 4:25-cv-00139-JCH Document 59 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iii. Doc. 46
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).
iv. Doc. 47
Plaintiff filed a “Supplemental Disclosure Statement” pursuant to Rule 26(e). (Doc.
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.
v. Doc. 48
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
Case 4:25-cv-00139-JCH Document 59 Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.)
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motions (Docs. 40 and 57) in part and
striking Docs. 32, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 50.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the remainder of Defendants’ Motions
(Docs. 40 and 57).
Dated this 31st day of October, 2025.
Case 4:25-cv-00139-JCH Document 59 Filed 11/03/25 Page 4 of 4