Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

DANIEL G. KNAUSS United States Attorney District of Arizona SUZANNE M. CHYNOWETH Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona Bar Number 6835 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Telephone: (602) 514-7500 Facsimile: (602) 514-7760 email: [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Alexander Jung, Plaintiff, v. CIV-04-0429-PHX-MHM

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE RE: FAILURE TO ENTER John Potter, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal INTERACTIVE PROCESS AND Service AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASON Defendant. AND UNDUE HARDSHIP AFFIRMATIVE [Doc. ## 90, 94, 98]

In this Response, Defendant, John E. Potter requests that the Court deny the following

17 three of Plaintiff's Motions in Limine (1) that the Court preclude evidence or argument about 18 whether the Defendant had a legitimate business reason for its alleged failure to accommodate 19 the Plaintiff [Doc. # 94]; (2) that the Court preclude evidence or argument whether Defendant's 20 alleged failure to accommodate was an undue hardship [Doc. # 98]; and (3) that the Court 21 preclude evidence or argument about whether Defendant provided a reasonable accommodation 22 [Doc. # 90]. As discussed below, Plaintiff sought and lost a summary judgment motion on these 23 very same issues and for the same reasons expressed in his motions in limine. The Court has 24 already determined that these are factual issues suitable for trial, and these motions to preclude 25 evidence should be denied. 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES On March 29, 2006 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgement requesting

Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM

Document 105

Filed 03/16/2007

Page 1 of 2

1 "summary judgment on Defendants [sic] failure to provide a reasonable accommodation and enter 2 the interactive process and on Defendant's affirmative defenses of Legitimate Business Reason 3 and Undue Hardship." [Doc. #57, p. 2.] The Court denied Plaintiff's motion, ruling that there 4 were genuine issues of material fact. [Court's Order (Doc. # 88).] The Court did not find true 5 or adopt any of Plaintiff's version of the facts on any issues. 1/ Rather, in its analysis, the Court 6 discussed the parties' conflicting versions of facts, and concluded that as to Plaintiff's motion on 7 these identical issues, a trial was warranted. Plaintiff cannot now seek to exclude evidence on 8 the same basis for which his summary judgment motion was already denied. 9 Defendant therefore, respectfully requests that the aforementioned Motions In Limine

10 [Docs. ## 90, 94 and 98] be denied. 11 12 13 14 15 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 17 I hereby certify that on March 16, 2007, I electronically transmitted the attached 18 document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice 19 of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: 20 Rosval A. Patterson 21 777 E. Thomas Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85014 22 s/S. Guerin ________________________________ 23 Office of the U.S. Attorney 24 25 26 27 28
Plaintiff claims that the Court found that "Mr. Trujillo did not accommodate Plaintiff's request." [Doc. #90, p. 2, ll. 14-16.] Plaintiff has misinterpreted this section of the Court's order which discussed asserted facts that preclude the Court from granting summary judgment on any of the grounds raised by the parties' motions.
1/

Respectfully submitted this 16th day of March, 2007. DANIEL G. KNAUSS United States Attorney District of Arizona s/Suzanne M. Chynoweth SUZANNE M. CHYNOWETH Assistant U.S. Attorney

2
Case 2:04-cv-00429-MHM Document 105 Filed 03/16/2007 Page 2 of 2