Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-00748/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-00748-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

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

Dealer Computer Services, Inc., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Fullers’ White Mountain Motors, Inc.,et

al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0748-PCT-JAT

ORDER

The Rule 16 deadlines in this case required the party with the burden of proof to

disclose experts by February 1, 2008, the responding party to disclose experts by March 7,

2008, and rebuttal experts to be disclosed by April 11, 2008. Doc. #21 at 2. Discovery

closes on June 6, 2008 and dispositive motions are due by July 11, 2008. Id. at 2, 4.

On March 3, 2008, Defendants moved for an extension of time to make responsive

expert disclosures. Doc. #43. In violation of Local Rule Civ. 7.3(b), Defendants failed to

represent the position of the opposing party. Defendants argue that because they suspected

opposing counsel would not consent, they should not be held to the requirements of the local

rules. Generally, this Court disagrees. More importantly, Defendants’ failure to advise the

Court of the parties’ positions caused the Court to be unable to rule on the motion before

Defendants’ March 7, 2008 deadline expired because the Court had to allow the briefing time

on the motion to run. Thus, if the Court denies the motion, the Court will not aid Defendants

out of a situation created by their own failure to follow the Local Rules.

Case 3:07-cv-00748-JAT Document 50 Filed 04/08/08 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

 This motion has now been resolved.

- 2 -

As to the merits of the motion, Defendants seek an extension of time in essence until

after the Court’s ruling on the motion to disqualify counsel due to Plaintiffs’ unwillingness

to conduct depositions without the counsel Defendants sought to disqualify being present.1

Plaintiffs respond and claim Defendants have never asked to take any depositions without

the presence of the attorney Defendants sought to disqualify. Defendants reply and claim

they withdrew a notice of deposition because Plaintiffs wanted the disputed attorney to be

present. The Court has no ability on this record to determine who is accurate on who is not.

However, the Court finds any dispute of this nature — who is permitted to be present

at depositions — is a discovery dispute, governed by this Court’s Rule 16 scheduling order

(Doc. #21, page 4, lines 10-18). Therefore, giving Defendants the benefit of the doubt that

they elected not to proceed with discovery because Plaintiffs would not go forward without

the disputed attorney, Defendants were bound to contact the Court regarding this discovery

dispute, in the manner outlined in this Court’s scheduling order. Instead, Defendants took

no action other than wait until four days before their deadline ran to file a motion that the

Court could not resolve within the deadline. Moreover, Defendants have not articulated what

discovery they forwent, nor how such lack of discovery caused them to be unable to make

their expert disclosures. For both of these reasons, the Court does not find the motion to

show good cause for the extension. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6(b)(1).

Finally, in their reply, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures were so

deficient that Defendants could not respond to them. If true, again this would be a discovery

dispute governed by this Court’s Rule 16 scheduling order. Further, if Plaintiffs’ disclosures

were in fact this deficient, such deficiency would not be cured by Defendants getting an

extension of time to respond. In other words, any extension for Defendants would not

change Defendants’ ability to respond to a disclosure that was so inadequate that Defendants

could not respond to it within the deadline. Therefore, the Court does not find this to be good

cause for an extension.

Case 3:07-cv-00748-JAT Document 50 Filed 04/08/08 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 -

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for extension of time (Doc. #43) as modified (Doc.

#45) is denied;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery deadline of June 6, 2008 and the

dispositive motion deadline of July 11, 2008 are confirmed.

DATED this 7th day of April, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-00748-JAT Document 50 Filed 04/08/08 Page 3 of 3