Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01794/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01794-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

 1 Defendants however are to comply with the law and provide Plaintiff with

appropriate responses to discovery under the law. Plaintiff has contacted Chambers

pursuant to the Rule 16 Order, and a date will be set for a discovery dispute hearing

should Plaintiff not receive such responses prior to the discovery deadline.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ramona D. Lopez.,

Plaintiff,

v.

John E. Potter, Postmaster General,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-1794-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Currently before the Court are the motions of both Plaintiff (Doc. 40) and Defendant

(Doc. 39) requesting an amended scheduling order. The Court has determined that under the

circumstances, the deadline for completing discovery will be extended to Friday, January

17, 2008. Defendant will be granted no further discovery extensions. Accordingly, the

dispositive motion deadline for both parties will be extended until Friday, February 15,

2008. The previous dates are therefore vacated.

Furthermore, should the parties have disputes regarding discovery, they are to refer

to and comply with the Court’s R.16 Order which explains the Court’s discovery dispute

procedure. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Produce Documents Without Hearing (Doc. 41)

is DENIED without Prejudice.1

Case 2:05-cv-01794-SMM Document 43 Filed 12/19/07 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

- 2 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendant’s Motion to Continue the

Dispositive Motion Deadline (Doc. 39).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of

Time to File Dispositive Motions (Doc. 40).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion to Produce Documents

Without Hearing (Doc. 41).

DATED this 18th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01794-SMM Document 43 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 2