Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00757/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00757-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Public Accomodations)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard A. Adams,

Plaintiff,

v.

Belden Communications Company, a

Delaware Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 05 0757 PHX DGC

ORDER

The Court held a hearing on Oct ober 21, 2005. Plaintiff was represented by his new

attorney, Franzula M. Bacher. Defendants were represented by defense counsel. Mr.

McKee was present. On the basis of the discussion on the record,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. On or before the end of t he elect ronic filing day on October 27, 2005, Ms.

Bacher shall file a response to Defendant’s Application for Order to Show Cause (Doc. #29)

and a reply in support of the Motion to Quash and M ot ion for Protective Order

(Doc. ##23, 24). This filing shall identify by name, address, and telephone number the

Tempe attorney who is alleged to have assisted Plaintiff in this case and supervised the

work of Mr. McKee. The filing shall also include a sworn confirmation from the attorney t hat

the facts set forth in the declarations of Richard A. Adams and Roger A. McKee dated

September 13, 2005, concerning the Tempe lawyer, are true and correct . No reply in support

of the Order to Show Cause application will be filed by defense counsel.

Case 2:05-cv-00757-DGC Document 37 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

-2-

2. On or before the close of business on O ctober 28, 2005, Plaintiff’s counsel

shall serve written responses to all outstanding discovery requests on defense counsel.

3. On or before 3:00 p.m. on October 31, 2005, defense counsel shall file a

memorandum discussing the proposed scope of Mr. McKee’s deposition and why that

scope of dep osition will not include matters “substantially related” to Fennemore Craig’s

prior representation of Mr. McKee.

4. A hearing will be held on Nove mbe r 1, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. This hearing shall

address the motion to quash, the application for order to show cause, Defendants’ motion

to compel discovery (Doc. #31), and the adequacy of Plaintiff’s discovery responses. Mr.

Adams and Mr. McKee shall personally attend this hearing. 

5. Plaintiff shall file a resp onse to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #27) on or before

November 11, 2005. Defendants shall file a reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss on

or before November 18, 2005.

6. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. #32) is granted in part and

denied in part as set forth above.

7. Defendants’ Request for Expedited Scheduling of Oral Argument (Doc. #28)

is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above.

8. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. #31) is granted as set forth

above.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00757-DGC Document 37 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 2