Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00444/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00444-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability

---

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

United States of America 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Vistoso Partners, LLC,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-0444 PHX DGC

ORDER

The parties placed a discovery conference call to the Court on November 22, 2010.

Plaintiff asked the Court to strike Defendant’s expert witness disclosures as insufficient

under the Court’s Case Management Order and Rule 26. After taking the matter under

advisement, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request.

The Case Management Order required defense expert disclosures to be made by

August 27, 2010. Defendant identified two experts on that date, but failed to provide any

expert reports as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Defense counsel explained during the

conference call that he assumed such reports would be due in advance of the expert

deposition deadline, which was set on December 17, 2010. Defense counsel did not dispute

that the Case Management Order was clear, but asserted that he simply missed the deadline.

In effect, Defendant asks the Court to extend the deadline for expert disclosures from

August 27, 2010, to early December, 2010. 

Deadlines established in a case management order may “be modified only for good

cause[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

Case 2:10-cv-00444-GMS Document 27 Filed 11/23/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

608 (9th Cir. 1992). “Good cause” exists when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite

the diligence of the parties seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Comm.

Notes (1983 Am.) Thus, “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the

diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; see also Coleman

v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir. 2000). Where that party has not been

diligent, the inquiry ends and the motion is denied. Zifkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d

1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. 

The Case Management Order in this case established a clear deadline for all defense

expert disclosures: 

Defendant(s) shall provide full and complete expert disclosures as required

by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than

August 27, 2010.

Doc. 15, ¶ 5(b) (bold in original). Detailed expert reports are required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B),

and the Court’s order made clear that “full and complete” compliance with this requirement,

as well as the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (C), must occur on August 27, 2010.

Defense counsel asserts that he simply misunderstood the order and missed the deadline, but

inadvertence does not satisfy the good cause standard for extending a litigation deadline. As

the Ninth Circuit has explained, “carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence

and offers no reason for a grant of relief.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Nor has Defendant

shown that it could not meet the Court’s deadline through reasonable diligence. In short,

Defendant has not shown good cause and the Court therefore will not extend the deadline for

defense expert disclosures. 

Because Defendant has not disclosed expert reports as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B),

the Court will not permit Defendant to use experts in this litigation. The Court concludes that

the failure is not substantially justified or harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). This case

is less than four weeks from the close of discovery. Doc. 15. Not only has the deadline for

Defendant’s expert disclosures passed, but the deadline for any rebuttal experts from Plaintiff

has passed as well. The parties have had ample opportunity to comply with the Case

Case 2:10-cv-00444-GMS Document 27 Filed 11/23/10 Page 2 of 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

1

 Plaintiff’s counsel stated during the conference call that it has identified no expert witnesses

in this case, and would have done so only in response to Defendant’s expert reports. Thus,

if the Court were to extend the defense expert deadline in this case, it would also need to

extend the rebuttal expert deadline, the expert deposition deadline, and the dispositive motion

deadline. Resolution of the entire case would be significantly delayed.

- 3 -

Management Order, and further delay in the resolution of this case simply is not warranted.1

 “In these days of heavy caseloads, trial courts . . . set schedules and establish

deadlines to foster the efficient treatment and resolution of cases.” Wong v. Regents of the

Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005). “The parties must understand that they

will pay a price for failure to comply strictly with scheduling and other orders[.]” Id.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s expert witnesses are stricken and will not be

permitted to testify in this litigation.

DATED this 23rd day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00444-GMS Document 27 Filed 11/23/10 Page 3 of 3