Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04442/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04442-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

Stephen Ditko,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Fabiano Communications Incorporated,

Defendant.

No. CV-19-04442-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Deadline for Discovery. (Doc. 28.) 

The discovery deadline in this case was February 14, 2020. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff Stephen 

Ditko, pro se, moves for a 60-day extension. Defendant Fabiano Communications, Inc. 

objects to the motion. (Doc. 29.) For the reasons stated herein, the motion is granted.

Plaintiff served discovery requests on Defendant on January 24, 2020. (Doc. 24; 

Doc. 28 at 1.) Defendant did not respond to the discovery requests because its deadline to 

do so was February 26, 2020. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). (Doc. 29 at 2.) Plaintiff also 

requested availability for depositions for the first time on the February 14 deadline. (Id. at 

2.) Plaintiff attributes his untimeliness to a pro se “learning curve,” his recent relocation to 

Phoenix from California, and his efforts to take on “small, low wage” work projects, all of 

which have been “overwhelming both physically and mentally.” (Id. at 2-3.) 

The motion also states that Plaintiff “filed a Motion to Extend Time for Discovery 

and Compel Discovery on February 14, 2020.” (Id. at 2.) The record does not reflect that 

Plaintiff has previously filed such a motion. Rather, as indicated in Defendant’s response, 

Case 2:19-cv-04442-MTL Document 33 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

Plaintiff emailed a copy to Defendant but never filed it with the Court. (Doc. 29 at 2.) 

Plaintiff then filed the pending motion on March 25, 2020. (Doc. 28.) Defendant filed a 

response on March 26, 2020. (Doc. 29.) Defendant also filed a Motion for Summary 

Judgment on the same day. (Docs. 30, 31.)

Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit and has a duty to prosecute the case. See Fidelity 

Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated, Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to 

prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss 

the action or any claim against it.” Further, pro se litigants including Plaintiff must comply 

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and all Court orders. See Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 

F.2d 1362, 1364–65 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court expects Plaintiff to familiarize himself with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of 

Arizona, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and any other applicable rules. Nonetheless, in the 

interests of justice and to ensure that Plaintiff has an opportunity to prosecute the case, the 

Court will permit the extension.

In so ruling, the Court notes that Defendant contributed to the delay. After Plaintiff 

served discovery requests on January 24, Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiff on the 

discovery deadline, February 14, that “your discovery requests were untimely when they 

were served on me on January 24, 2020. The response date for that discovery is February 

24, 2020, which is after the close of discovery. Therefore, we will not be responding to 

those requests.” (Doc. 29-2.) Defendant’s counsel was also aware that on February 16, 

“Plaintiff emailed undersigned counsel a Motion to Extend Discovery that was never filed 

with the Court.” (Doc. 29 at 2.) While the Court acknowledges counsel’s duty to vigorously 

defend her client, it also notes that a dose of professionalism would have minimized the 

delay to the case schedule.

The Court also acknowledges that “Defendant has spent a significant amount in 

legal fees over the last two months” in preparing its Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 

29.) Following the close of discovery, as modified by this Order, Defendant may either rely 

Case 2:19-cv-04442-MTL Document 33 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

on the pending motion or to withdraw it and file a new one.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Deadline to Extend 

Deadline for Discovery (Doc. 28). The deadline to complete fact discovery, including final 

supplementation of MIDP responses, is extended to April 30, 2020.

*

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the dispositive motion deadline is extended to 

June 12, 2020.

There will be no further extensions of these deadlines for any reason.

Dated this 9th day of April, 2020.

* The Court is granting a longer-than-requested extension because Plaintiff’s motion would 

extend the deadline to April 14, 2020. The Court does not believe that compliance would 

be practicable by this date.

Case 2:19-cv-04442-MTL Document 33 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 3