Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00322/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00322-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

Concrete Management Corporation, a

Colorado Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Double AA Builders of California, Inc., a

California corporation; Double AA

Builders, Ltd., an Arizona corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0322-PHX-LOA

AMENDED SCHEDULING

ORDER

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

represented by counsel, Perry L. Goorman. Defendants are represented by counsel, Michael

J. Holden. Court reporter is not present.

All parties have expressly consented in writing to magistrate-judge jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c) and Rule 73, Fed.R.Civ.P., with the approval of United States

District Judge Mary H. Murguia. (docket # 14)

Informal discussions are held regarding the Court’s case management practices,

the importance of strict compliance with the Rule 16 deadlines, and the opportunity for an

early settlement conference before another magistrate judge provided some preliminary

discovery has been completed of key parties and witnesses to ensure that an early settlement

conference is more meaningful. The Court and counsel discuss in detail the initial Rule 16

Case 2:08-cv-00322-LOA Document 20 Filed 05/16/08 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

 B. General Policies:

4. Documents submitted for filing in the ECF system must be in a

Portable Document Format (.pdf). Documents which exist only in

paper form may be scanned into .pdf for electronic filing. All

electronic documents must be converted to .pdf directly from a word

processing program (e.g., Microsoft Word® or Corel WordPerfect®)

and must be text searchable.

ECF Manual, General Policies, (B)(4), at 3.

- 2 -

Scheduling Order, docket # 16, issued by the formerly-assigned district judge. Counsel

confirm that both sides have complied with FED.R.CIV.P. 26(a)’s initial disclosures as

ordered. 

Counsel shall comply with the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies

and Procedures’ Manual and, in particular, General Policy B(4), so that the Court or

chamber’s staff may copy and paste from any motion.1

 It is only exhibits, such as,

construction documents, police and medical records, and similar documents not prepared by

counsel of record that may be scanned into the ECF system. When such documents are

scanned in, the Court is unable to copy and paste into an order.

Counsel stipulate and agree to the following modifications to the initial Rule

16 Scheduling Order.

Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED vacating in its entirety paragraph 8 of the initial Rule 16

Scheduling Order, docket # 16 at 4 - 5, subject to resetting the dates for filing motions in

limine, the final Pretrial Order and Conference and jury trial after completion of all discovery

or the Court’s ruling on dispositive motions, if any. The first sentence of paragraph 6(a) is

vacated in its entirety. (Id. at 3)

The Court hereby modifies the dates only of the initial Rule 16 Scheduling

Order, docket # 16:

1. paragraph 2 to Monday, June 30, 2008 regarding joining parties or

amending pleading, id. at 1.

Case 2:08-cv-00322-LOA Document 20 Filed 05/16/08 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 -

2. paragraph 4 to Friday, April 3, 2009 regarding the completion of fact

discovery, id. at 2. 

3. paragraph 5(a) to Friday, October 3, 2008 regarding disclosure of

Plaintiff’s expert(s) and Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., report(s); paragraph (5)(b) to

Friday, December 5, 2008 regarding disclosure of Defendants’ expert(s) and Rule

26(a)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., report(s); and paragraph (5)(c) to Friday, February 6, 2009

regarding disclosure of Plaintiff’s true rebuttal expert(s) solely to contradict or rebut

Defendants’ expert witness(es) and Rule 26(a)(2)(C), Fed.R.Civ.P., rebuttal report(s), id. at

3. 

Each testifying expert witness (regardless of whether such expert witness has

or has not been specifically retained for this case, such as, a treating physician, or if the

expert is an employee of the calling party, such as, a concrete expert, shall provide a written

report to the adverse party setting forth the, at least, the requirements dictated by Rule

26(a)(2)(B). Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. Signtech USA, Ltd., 177 F.R.D.

459 (D. Minn. 1998).

Any expert witness not timely disclosed will not be permitted to testify unless

the party offering such witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity of such expert witness

could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time of the deadline for disclosing such

expert witness; (b) the Court and opposing counsel or unrepresented party were promptly

notified upon discovery of such expert witness; and (c) that such expert witness was

promptly proffered for deposition. Wong v. Regents of the University of California, 379 F.3d.

1097 (9th Cir. 2004); Rule 37(c)(1), FED.R.CIV.P.

4. paragraph 5(d) to Friday, April 3, 2009 regarding completion of expert

depositions, id at 3.

5. paragraph 7(a)’s dispositive motion deadline to Friday, June 5, 2009, id

at 4. 

All other orders set forth in the initial Rule 16 Scheduling Order are hereby

AFFIRMED.

Case 2:08-cv-00322-LOA Document 20 Filed 05/16/08 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 2

 See, LRCiv 7.2(e).

- 4 -

Stipulations extending the time for the doing of any act required by the Court

or the Rules of Civil Procedure will be treated as a joint motion subject to Court approval.

LRCiv. 7.3; Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equipment Company, 108 F.R.D. 138 (D. Maine

1985)(good cause not shown to amend scheduling order); Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer,

42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir.1994)(“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 is to be taken

seriously”). These deadlines are real. The parties are advised that the Court intends to

enforce the deadlines set forth in this and the original Scheduling Order. Counsel should plan

their litigation activities accordingly. Hostnut.Com, Inc.v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 2006

WL 2573201 *1 (D. Ariz. 2006). Continuances of these deadlines may be granted only upon

a showing of good cause and by leave of the assigned trial judge. Settlement negotiations,

however, do not constitute good cause.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each side is limited to only one motion for

summary judgment that complies with the Local Rule’s page limitations2

 unless express prior

leave of the Court is granted for good cause shown.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented,

shall hereinafter comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for

the District of Arizona, as amended on December 1, 2006, and the Standards of Professional

Conduct. The District’s Local Rules and Standards may be found on the District Court’s 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-00322-LOA Document 20 Filed 05/16/08 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 -

internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other rules may be found at

www.uscourts.gov/rules/.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall use the above caption,

number and initials on all further pleadings or documents filed herein until further order of

the Court.

DATED this 15th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00322-LOA Document 20 Filed 05/16/08 Page 5 of 5