Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01401/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01401-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

SANDRA DOWLING and DENNIS 

DOWLING, husband and wife, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. CV 09-1401-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Plaintiffs,

v. 

SHERIFF JOSEPH ARPAIO and 

AVA ARPAIO, husband and wife; 

MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF 

SUPERVISORS; MARICOPA 

COUNTY, a Municipal entity; JOHN 

DOES I-X; JANE DOES I-X; BLACK 

CORPORATIONS I-V; and WHITE 

PARTNERSHIPS, I-V, 

 Defendants.

The Court having reviewed and considered Plaintiffs’ Request for an Extension 

of Time to Complete Discovery and File Dispositive Motions, the Court does not find 

cause to extend the deadlines. In the order granting the fourth request to extend 

deadlines, on May 3, 2011, the Court advised the parties that there would be no further 

extension of these deadlines. This case has been pending in Federal Court since July 2, 

2009, and the Court finds that two years was adequate time to conduct discovery in this 

case. Additionally, the “newly discovered” information that Plaintiffs claim caused the 

need to extend the discovery deadline was in Plaintiffs possession sufficiently in 

advance of the July 5, 2011 discovery deadline to complete discovery within the 

Case 2:09-cv-01401-JAT Document 196 Filed 07/01/11 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

deadline. Specifically, Plaintiffs have had the Babeu report since May 4, 2011, and took 

the Hendershott deposition on March 1, 2011. Thus, based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the request to extend the discovery and dispositive motion 

deadlines (Doc. 195) is denied. This denial is without prejudice to Plaintiffs seeking 

other sanctions if Defendants failed to comply with the discovery rules or supplement 

their discovery responses. 

Dated this 1st day of July, 2011. 

Case 2:09-cv-01401-JAT Document 196 Filed 07/01/11 Page 2 of 2