Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02873/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02873-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Pearl Wilson, Personal Representative

of the Estate of Phillip Wilson,

deceased; Terry Wilson and Pearl

Wilson, surviving parents of Phillip

Wilson,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Maricopa County, a public entity, et al.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2873 PHX-DGC

ORDER

The parties have filed a stipulation regarding pretrial deadlines. See Doc. #45. The

stipulation seeks to extend the discovery deadline in this case from December 16, 2005 to

June 16, 2006. The stipulation also seeks to extend the deadline for dispositive mot ions

from January 20, 2006 to July 14, 2006. The only explanation provided by the parties is the

following: “Due to issues regarding t he t iming of document production in this case and the

scheduling of depositions, the parties have determined that an extension is required t o

complete discovery in this case.” Doc. #45 at 2. 

Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court established

a litigation schedule in the Case Management Order dated May 19, 2005. See Doc. #11.

The Order specifically advised the parties that the deadlines were to be enforced. See Doc.

#11, ¶ 10. Rule 16 provides that a schedule established in a case management order “shall

not be modified except upon a showing of good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). This “good

Case 2:04-cv-02873-DGC Document 46 Filed 10/24/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

cause” standard p rimarily considers the diligence of the parties seeking the amendment.

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “The district court

may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the

p arties seeking the extension.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Committee Not es

(1983 Amendment)).

The Stipulation does not establish good cause for an extension of the lit igat ion

schedule. It fails to explain the reasons for the delay and say s nothing about the parties’

diligence in pursuing discovery. A review of the docket in this case shows that Plaint iffs

have served four written discovery requests. See Doc. ## 5, 18, 21, 41. The docket reflects

no written discovery requests from Defendants and no not ices of deposition. This record

does not support a conclusion that the parties have been unable to comply with the

existing litigation schedule despite diligent discovery. 

The Court does recognize that substantial discovery disagreements arose between

the parties. These disagreements ultimat ely were resolved by the Court. See Doc. #38. For

this reason, the Court will grant a modest extension of the deadlines, but not the six months

requested by the parties. 

All fact discovery shall be completed by February 24, 2006. Dispositive motions

shall be filed on or before March 4, 2006. All other t erms of t he Court’s Case Management

Order (Doc. #11) shall remain in effect.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02873-DGC Document 46 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 2