Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00926/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00926-2/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

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission,

Plaintiff,

v.

AutoZone, Inc., a Nevada corporation, 

Defendant _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-926-PHX-SMM

ORDER

The Court has received yet another joint request for an extension of time to complete

discovery, albeit this time for another reason. At the initial Rule 16 hearing, with concurrence

of counsel, the Court set generous deadlines for completing discovery. An extension was

thereafter granted to accommodate counsels’ congested schedule. Despite the granting of the

extension, counsel sought an additional extension; again, the request was based on counsels’

congested schedule. For the reasons stated in its order, the Court denied the stipulation to

extend discovery. Now, based on Plaintiff’s lead counsel’s unexpected medical emergency, the

parties seek an additional extension to complete discovery. The contemplated dates bare a

striking resemblance to the earlier stipulation that the Court recently rejected. While the Court

is sympathetic to counsel’s medical emergency the Court will deny the request.

Initially, the EEOC has a legion of lawyers available to Plaintiff, and at least a few could

be able to assist in completing discovery. Scheduling approximately seven depositions on the

last day of discovery, all to be conducted by one counsel, demonstrates that these witnesses are

not critical to the case. As such, it would appear that they could be called to trial with a

Case 2:06-cv-00926-SMM Document 61 Filed 09/05/07 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

- 2 -

modicum of preparation. Moreover, each side was granted ten (10) depositions. The noticed,

but not taken depositions, represent 70% of Plaintiff’s allotment and approximately 35% of the

total amount granted.

It is apparent to the Court that the discovery deadlines were not taken seriously by

counsel. While the business of other courts was attended to, the deadlines of this Court were

not taken seriously.

Finally, the Court has not been provided any indicia of the discovery that has been

conducted to date to justify a further accommodation. As noted earlier, the EEOC has

substantial resources to address the discovery in this case, despite counsel’s concerns to the

contrary.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING the parties’ Joint Motion to Extend Discovery

Deadlines (Doc. 60).

DATED this 4th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00926-SMM Document 61 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 2