Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-08041/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-08041-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Garet Gary Smith and Traci Lynn Smith,

husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

CRST Van Expedited, Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-8041-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This is the time set for the Rule 16(b), FED.R.CIV.P., scheduling conference.

 Plaintiffs are represented by counsel, Dale W. Robinson. Defendants are represented by

counsel, Drew Gully. Court reporter is not present. 

All parties have heretofore consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(c). (docket # 20) Counsel represent that this Court has subject-matter

jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1332 as the matter in controversy

exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and the adverse parties are of

diverse citizenship. (docket # 1 at 1 - 2) The parties are reminded that the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure do not provide for the use of fictitious parties and that the naming of a “John

Doe” or “ABC Corporation” party “casts no magical spell on a complaint otherwise lacking

in diversity jurisdiction.” Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d 1187, 1191

(9th Cir. 1970) (citations omitted); Molnar v. National Broadcasting Company, 231 F.2d 684

(9th Cir. 1956). 

Case 2:07-cv-08041-LOA Document 23 Filed 02/13/08 Page 1 of 6
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 -

The Court informs counsel that since the judge’s bench at the small, historic

federal courthouse in Prescott is inaccessible for a judge who uses a wheelchair, the Court

is inclined to transfer the trial and all further matters in this case to the Sandra Day O'Connor

U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix pursuant to its discretion in Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(c). Like

Nevada and Alaska, Arizona does not have official, statutory divisions within the District of

Arizona. United States v. Rybachek, 643 F.Supp. 1086 (D. Alaska, 1986); El Ranco, Inc. v.

First National Bank, 406 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 875, (1969); 28

U.S.C. § 1404). No objection is made by any counsel.

Pursuant to the parties’ discussions with the Court today and the various

proposed deadlines in their Rule 26(f) joint case management plan, entitled Pretrial

Scheduling Conference Memorandum, docket # 17, filed on December 5, 2007, the Court

will set the various deadlines for the judicial management of this case. 

IT IS ORDERED that the parties, by and through their counsel, shall comply

with the following deadlines which were agreed to by all counsel. 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”). Continuances of these deadlines may

be granted only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the assigned trial judge.

Settlement negotiations do not constitute good cause. These 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. Hostnut.Com, Inc.v. Go Daddy Software, Inc.,

2006 WL 2573201 *1 (D. Ariz. 2006).

1. The parties shall exchange Rule 26(a) initial disclosures on or before Friday,

February 29, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-08041-LOA Document 23 Filed 02/13/08 Page 2 of 6
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 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir.1992) (once

scheduling order is filed pursuant to Rule 16(b), the good cause standard controls over the

Rule 15(a) standard). In Coleman v. Quaker Oats Company, 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir.

2000), the Ninth Circuit stated:

 Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) liberally allows for

amendments to pleadings. In this case, however, the district court correctly

found that it should address the issue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

16 because it had filed a pretrial scheduling order that established a timetable

for amending the pleadings, and the deadline had expired before [plaintiffs]

moved to amend. 

- 3 -

2. Filing motions to amend pleadings and motions to join additional parties by

June 1, 2008.

1

3. Because the Court believes that staggered expert disclosure is more

fair and will less likely result in requests for a modification of these deadlines, Plaintiffs’

disclosure of expert testimony and reports required under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. shall

be made by October 31, 2008. Defendants’ disclosures of expert testimony and reports

required under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., shall be made by December 1, 2008.

Plaintiffs’ disclosure of true rebuttal expert testimony and reports solely to contradict or rebut

evidence as required under Rule 26(a)(2)(C), Fed.R.Civ.P. shall be made by January 9, 2009.

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) shall provide a written report to the adverse party as

required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. Signtech USA,

Ltd., 177 F.R.D. 459 (D. Minn. 1998).

No expert witness not timely disclosed will 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

Case 2:07-cv-08041-LOA Document 23 Filed 02/13/08 Page 3 of 6
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

 The parties are on notice that this order supercedes the “30 day before trial”

disclosure deadline contained in FRCP 26(a)(3). Therefore, failure to timely supplement

pursuant to Rule 26(e), including attempts to include witnesses and exhibits in the Proposed

Final Pretrial Order or at trial that were not previously disclosed in a timely manner may

result in the exclusion of such evidence at trial or the imposition of other sanctions including

dismissal and the imposition of default pursuant to FRCP 37, the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure of the District Court, and the inherent power of the Court.

- 4 -

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. Disclosure of all known witnesses, exhibits and other matters under Rule

26(a)(3), Fed.R.Civ. P. and supplementation of all discovery pursuant to Rule 26(e),

Fed.R.Civ. P. by February 27, 2009.

2

5. Completion of all discovery: March 31, 2009.

6. Filing dispositive motion(s) on or before April 30, 2009. A Cross-motion

for summary judgment may be filed within 30 days of the adverse party's dispositive motion;

provided, however, such motion is solely related to the specific issue(s) directly raised in the

initial dispositive motion(s). Absent express prior leave of the Court, each side shall be

entitled to file only one motion for summary judgment that complies in all respects to the

Local Rules.

Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing,

Pursuant to Rule 5(b)(2)(D), FED.R.CIV.P. and this Court’s adoption of rules

regarding electronic filing, the parties consent and agree that service under Rule 5(a) may be

obtained on the other party by delivering a copy of the document by electronic means. Service

by electronic means is complete upon transmission. Counsel also advise the Court that they

are properly registered and will comply with the District Court’s Case Management/Electronic

Case Filing (“ECF”) Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual. See the District Court's

internet site (www.azd.uscourts.gov) and click onto the CM/ECF link for the details of the

District Court’s electronic filing system. 

Case 2:07-cv-08041-LOA Document 23 Filed 02/13/08 Page 4 of 6
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 -

The Court and counsel also generally discuss issues relating to the preservation,

production and privilege of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in

which it should be produced. See amendments to Fed. Civil Rules of Proc. 16(b)(5), 26(f)(3),

33, 34, 37 and 45, effective December 1, 2006; Dawn M. Bergin, New Federal Rules on EDiscovery - Help or Hindrance?, Arizona Attorney, December, 2006, pp. 22 - 28; Anthony

J. Battaglia, Dealing With Electronically Stored Information: Preservation, Production And

Privilege, The Federal lawyer, May, 2006, pp. 26-31. Counsel expressly indicate no concerns

about any such issues at this time.

Counsel are hereby advised that the Court has various audio/visual

equipment available for use at an evidentiary hearing or trial at no cost to the Bar. This

equipment includes an evidence presentation system, which consists of a document

camera, digital projector, and screen. The projector may be used to display images which

originate from a variety of sources, including television, VCR, and personal computer. 

The document camera may be used to display documents, photographs, charts,

transparencies, and small objects. For further information please contact the Court's A/V

Specialist, Brian Lalley at (602) 322-7131.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court may set an another Rule 16(b)

Scheduling Conference after the Court’s ruling on all dispositive motions; after completion

of all discovery, if no dispositive motion is timely filed; or upon written request from any

party to discuss the setting of a jury trial and all issues related thereto, i.e. the length and

times of trial, motions in limine, Daubert hearings, etc. Counsel shall bring their calendars

with them to this conference.

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

of the possibility of settlement and should 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 chambers. LRCiv 40.2(d). This Court views compliance with the provisions of this

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

parties under Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:07-cv-08041-LOA Document 23 Filed 02/13/08 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

The parties are advised that when sufficient information has been disclosed

between the parties to fairly appreciate and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the

claims and defenses alleged in this case, a settlement conference before another U.S.

magistrate judge may be requested. Delay in requesting, scheduling or concluding a

settlement conference or settlement negotiations do not constitute good cause to continue or

extend the deadlines set herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED transferring this case to Phoenix for trial and

all further matters. Counsel and any unrepresented party shall use proper capitalization and

the following number and initials on all pleadings and documents filed herein until further

order of the Court: No. CV-07-8041-PHX-LOA. LRCiv(a)(3).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all counsel shall hereinafter comply with

the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, as

amended on December 1, 2007. The District’s Rules of Practice may be found on the

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

at www.uscourts.gov/rules/. Counsel are also reminded of his or her certification to comply

with the Standards of Professional Conduct with admission to practice in this District

Court. The Standards of Professional Conduct are located on the District's website, click on

link "Attorney Information," and then click on link "Attorney Admissions Information." 

DATED this 13th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-08041-LOA Document 23 Filed 02/13/08 Page 6 of 6