Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02153/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02153-2/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

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vickey Sarantis, a single woman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ADP, Inc., a foreign corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2153-PHX-LOA

SCHEDULING ORDER

This is the time set for informal Rule 16 scheduling conference. Plaintiff is

represented by counsel, Kevin R. Keating and Matthew H. Mason. Defendant is represented

by local counsel, Neil M. Alexander, Kristin R. Culbertson, Cyrus B. Martinez, and

telephonically by Texas counsel, Robin L. Harrison. Court reporter is not present.

Counsel and the Court informally discuss trial procedures regarding introducing

exhibits in evidence and the absence of unreasonable restrictions to the courtroom podium.

Recross examination of witnesses during trial, however, is not permitted. Counsel and the

Court discuss its new electronic courtroom equipment. Counsel are invited to informally learn

how to use the new electronic courtroom equipment prior to trial by calling the District Court’s

A/V Specialist, Brian Lalley, at (602) 322-7131 to schedule a joint appointment for all counsel

well in advance of trial.

Counsel agree to a jury of nine (9) jurors. By stipulation, there shall be no

formal alternates. Counsel stipulate that fifteen (15) prospective jurors will be initially called

Case 2:06-cv-02153-SRB Document 139 Filed 06/23/08 Page 1 of 5
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 Also see, American Bar Association, Principles for Juries and Jury Trials, Principle

13(C)(“In civil cases, jurors should, ordinarily, be permitted to submit written questions for

witnesses. . . . ”)

2 Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 39(f)(“ . . ; except that the jurors shall be instructed

that they will be permitted to discuss the evidence among themselves in the jury room during

recesses from trial when all jurors are present, as long as they reserve judgment about the

outcome of the case until deliberations commence. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the jurors'

discussion of the evidence among themselves during recesses may be limited or prohibited

by the court for good cause."); American Bar Association, Principles for Juries and Jury

Trials, Principle 13(F)(“Jurors in civil cases may be instructed that they will be permitted to

discuss the evidence among themselves in the jury room during recesses from trial when all

are present, as long as they reserve judgment about the outcome of the case until

deliberations commence.”)

- 2 -

on a “strike and replace” basis with Plaintiff and Defendant entitled to three alternating

peremptory challenges each. The singular strikes begin with Plaintiff. See, Rule 48,

FED.R.CIV.P.; 28 U.S.C. §1870; contra, LRCiv 47.1. Counsel stipulate that any verdict must

be unanimous with no less than 6 jurors reaching a verdict. If all 9 jurors are available to

deliberate when the case is given to the jury to begin their deliberations, counsel stipulate that

all nine jurors will be permitted to deliberate. Counsel only agree to a binding verdict of 6

jurors or more.

In the exercise of its wide discretion and with all counsel in concurrence, the

Court will permit jurors to take notes and ask written questions in the procedure outlined by

the Court. United States v. Vaccaro, 816 F.2d 443, 451 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 914

(1987) (note taking); United States v. Huebner, 48 F.3d 376, 382 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,

516 U.S. 816 (1995) (written questions).1

 Unlike the practice in Arizona Superior Courts and

the recommendation of the ABA, counsel do not agree that jurors be authorized to discuss

the case amongst themselves with qualifications during the trial and before beginning formal

jury deliberations.2

 Thus, jurors will be instructed that they may not discuss the evidence or

the case amongst themselves until the case is presented to them and formal deliberations

begin. Counsel are permitted to conduct appropriate voir dire examination directly with

prospective jurors, either individually or collectively, after the Court’s initial examination

Case 2:06-cv-02153-SRB Document 139 Filed 06/23/08 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

subject to timely objection by adverse counsel. The details of affirmative juror’s answers to

potentially embarrassing relevant questions shall be on the record in the courtroom outside

the presence of the other jurors.

Pursuant to the Court’s discussion, and counsels’ agreements to the dates set

forth hereinafter, and good cause appearing, the Court will hereinafter set the dates for the jury

trial, oral arguments on the pending motions in limine and other deadlines.

IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e) and 37(c)

and except as the Court may decide on a pending related motion in limine, the Court will not

allow the parties to modify the Joint Final Pretrial Order or introduce at trial any exhibits,

witnesses, or other information or to make any objections to exhibits that were not previously

specified and/or disclosed as directed by the Court in the Joint Final Pretrial Order, except to

prevent manifest injustice. Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 1998); Galdamez v.

Potter, 415 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2005).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if either side intends to call an expert

witness and there is some question about an expert’s qualifications and/or the reliability of

his/her opinion(s), adverse counsel shall file a Daubert motion to preclude or limit the

expert’s testimony pursuant to the Court’s “gate keeping” function no later than Friday,

August 23, 2008. Fed.R.Evid. 702; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.

579 (1993); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); Clausen v. M/V New

Carissa, 339 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2003) (“Scientific evidence is deemed reliable if the

principles and methodology used by an expert are grounded in the methods of science.”).

Responses and Replies, if any, shall be timely filed as required by law. LRCiv 7.2(c) and (d).

Failure to comply with this deadline shall constitute waiver of any Daubert objections.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting the trial of this matter to a jury,

beginning on Monday, September 22, 2008 through Friday, October 3, 2008 (although ten

trial days are reserved, each side shall be entitled to 3.5 trial days after jury selection and

Case 2:06-cv-02153-SRB Document 139 Filed 06/23/08 Page 3 of 5
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 3 Only jury selection and opening statements will occur on the first day.

- 4 -

opening statements on the first day3) in Courtroom 302 on the third floor of the Sandra Day

O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 E. Washington, Phoenix, Arizona. Unless otherwise ordered,

the start time for each trial day shall be from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and from 1:30 p.m.

to 4:30 p.m. Counsel shall be in or near the courtroom every day by 9:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.

in the event issues develop that need to be resolved outside the presence of the jury. It is

important to the Court and jurors that the trial schedule be followed so counsel should plan

their case and witnesses accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting oral argument on the pending motions

in limine on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. before the undersigned in Courtroom

302. Defendant’s request that replies be permitted is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall keep the Court apprised

of the possibility of settlement and should a settlement be reached, the parties shall

immediately file a Notice of Settlement with the Clerk of the Court with a copy to this Court’s

chamber’s email box (anderson chambers@azd.uscourts.gov). LRCiv. 40.2(d). Settlement

negotiations do not constitute good cause to continue the deadlines and dates set herein as

these are real and will be enforced by the Court. Hostnut.Com, Inc.v. Go Daddy Software,

Inc., 2006 WL 2573201 *1 (D. Ariz. 2006); Schwartz v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., CV-06-

2168-PHX-FJM (“[C]haracterization of the trial date as a ‘first setting,’ . . . ignores the fact

that under the Rule 16 scheduling order, the trial date is firm and the parties were advised of

that. In this court, the first setting is the last setting absent extraordinary circumstances (like

death), which obviously are not present here.”) (docket # 83 at 2 in CV-06-2168-PHX-FJM).

Also see, LRCiv 40.2(b).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court views compliance with the 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-02153-SRB Document 139 Filed 06/23/08 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

provisions of this Order as critical to its case management responsibilities and the

responsibilities of counsel under Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 20th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02153-SRB Document 139 Filed 06/23/08 Page 5 of 5