Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

Russell A. Kolsrud, #004578 Brad M. Thies, #021354 N ORLING, K OLSRUD, S IFFERMAN & D AVIS, P.L.C. 16427 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 210 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 (480) 505-0015 Attorneys for Defendant ValueOptions, Inc. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Shannon Michael Clark, Plaintiff, v. ValueOptions, Inc., Defendant. VALUEOPTIONS< RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff ValueOptions, Inc. ("ValueOptions), hereby submits its Response and Objection to Plaintiff
Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

Document 248

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FACTUAL STATEMENT In an Order dated August 1, 2005, this Court denied ValueOptions< Motion for Summary Judgment and invited the parties to file subsequent dispositive motions. [Doc. 121]. In denying ValueOptions< Motion, this Court recognized that the Supreme Court has consistently "required a plaintiff seeking to impose liability on a municipality under § 1983 to identify" not just knowledge but "a municipal policy
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 /// 27 28 2 pursuant to applicable standards sufficient to overcome a motion based on application of the appropriate standards. [Id. p. 9]. Pursuant to the Court
Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

Document 248

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

II.

ARGUMENT Plaintiff
supplement his Response to the pending Summary Judgment Motion lacks sufficient legal justification. The right to request a stay of summary judgment would need to comply with Rule 56(f). Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). In order to qualify for a stay under Rule 56(f), the request must be timely and must demonstrate (1) why additional discovery is necessary and (2) how the additional discovery will likely create a genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiff
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 would create a genuine issue of material fact based on law applicable to ValueOptions< 27 28 3 almost two years after the close of discovery. [Dkt. 157]. Plaintiff
Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

Document 248

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 3 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Motion.1 The discovery responses of Defendants Marshall and Crumbley are simply not relevant to the Plaintiff
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Generalized statements that certain information necessary to prepare a response is solely in the possession of the moving party is held insufficient. Carpenter v. Federal Nat 1

justification, Plaintiff
Original of the foregoing e-filed with the Clerk and Copy hand-delivered this 28 th day of August, 2006, to: The Honorable Earl H. Carroll United States District Court 401 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85003

Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

Document 248

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 4 of 5

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 Honorable Hector C. Estrada United States District Court 405 West Congress Street Tucson, AZ 85701 Copy of the foregoing mailed this 28th day of August, 2006, to: Shannon M. Clark #113372 ASPC-Tucson-Santa Rita P.O. Box 24406 Tucson, Arizona 85734-4406 Plaintiff pro per /s/ Pam Whitmore

5

Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

Document 248

Filed 08/28/2006

Page 5 of 5