Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00896/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00896-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

Scott Huminski, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Hector Heretia, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV11-0896 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 The Court held a discovery conference call with the parties on January 18, 2012. 

The conference call was held on the record. This order will reflect matters decided 

during the conference call and thereafter. 

 1. On or before February 10, 2012, Plaintiff Scott Huminski shall file a 

response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 95) and, if he chooses, a 

cross-motion for summary judgment. On or before February 27, 2012, Defendants shall 

file a response to Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment and a reply in support of 

their motion for summary judgment, as a single document. On or before March 7, 2012, 

Plaintiff shall file a reply in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment. 

 2. Discovery shall be suspended until the Court rules on the motions for 

summary judgment. No party shall engage in discovery during this time period. If the 

Court’s ruling does not finally resolve this case, the Court will set a case management 

conference to discuss completion of discovery in preparation for trial. 

 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Summary Judgment Motion (Doc. 100) is 

denied. The Court and the parties decided in the January 18, 2012 conference call that 

Case 2:11-cv-00896-DGC Document 108 Filed 01/19/12 Page 1 of 2
‐ 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 

completing summary judgment briefing was the most efficient way to seek a final 

resolution of this case. 

 4. The Motion for Disqualification of Hon. Judge Campbell (Doc. 103) is 

denied. The motion asserts that the Court’s Judicial Assistant (“JA”) has become a fact 

witness in this case because she received an inquiry from Phoenix School of Law as to 

whether an evidentiary hearing would be held on January 18, 2012. The Court does not 

agree that its JA is a fact witness. Her communications with counsel for the Phoenix 

School of Law concerned the scheduling of hearings. The motion also asserts that the 

Court’s JA violated the scheduling order in this case. In fact, the Court’s JA is under 

instruction to schedule telephone hearings in all discovery disputes. The Court routinely 

denies written discovery motions because its case management order (¶ 6) requires that 

such matters be addressed in telephone conferences with the Court. The Court’s pursuit 

of this policy does not constitute a basis for disqualification. 

 Dated this 19th day of January, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-00896-DGC Document 108 Filed 01/19/12 Page 2 of 2