Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00094/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00094-2/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

Hostnut.Com, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Go Daddy Software, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0094 PHX DGC

ORDER

The parties have filed a stipulation seeking to extend certain deadlines contained in

the Court’s Case Management Order (Doc. #31). The stipulation states that the parties have

been engaged in settlement talks and seeks an extension of the discovery deadline to July 31,

2006, and an extension of the dispositive motion deadline to September 29, 2006. Doc. #38.

The Case Management Order set a discovery deadline of March 31, 2006 and a

dispositive motion deadline of April 28, 2006. The order also contained this paragraph:

The Deadlines Are Real. The parties are advised that the Court intends

to enforce the deadlines set forth in this Order, and should plan their

litigation activities accordingly.

Doc. #38, ¶10.

The parties state in their stipulation that they “agreed in writing” to extend the

deadline for fact discovery through the end of April, but they seem to forget that the Court,

not the parties, sets the schedule. Rule 16 provides that a court shall enter a scheduling

order governing the case and that the “schedule shall not be modified except upon a showing

Case 2:05-cv-00094-DGC Document 39 Filed 04/19/06 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

1

 On November 7, 2005, the parties filed a report regarding settlement discussions

(Doc. #33), but the report said nothing about the need to postpone discovery or extend any

deadlines. Indeed, the parties stated that any assistance from the Court in settlement issues

would be premature.

- 2 -

of good cause[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The Ninth Circuit has made clear that “[t]he

scheduling order ‘controls the subsequent course of the action’ unless modified by the

court.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e)). “Good cause to extend a deadline exists when the deadline “cannot

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 16 Advisory Comm. Notes (1983 Am.).

The Case Management Order was entered six months ago and adopted a schedule

proposed by the parties. The docket suggests that little or no discovery has occurred since

then. Although the parties assert that they have been engaged in settlement talks, the parties

made no effort to apprize the Court of any delay caused by their settlement efforts or to seek

an extension of the Court’s deadlines.1

 The discovery deadline passed without a motion to

extend or a showing of good cause. The Court cannot conclude that the deadline could not

reasonably have been met through diligence. The Court will not extend the discovery

deadline. 

 “In these days of heavy case loads, 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. 

The Court’s deadline for filing dispositive motions is now only days away. To afford

time for the parties to file such motions, the Court will extend the deadline to May 12, 2006.

The Court will not be inclined to grant additional extensions.

Case 2:05-cv-00094-DGC Document 39 Filed 04/19/06 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 - 3 -

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation to extend certain deadlines (Doc. #38)

is denied, except that the deadline for dispositive motions is extended to May 12, 2006.

DATED this 19th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00094-DGC Document 39 Filed 04/19/06 Page 3 of 3