Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00817/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00817-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

Gary Hamblen, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

WIP, L.L.C., an Arizona company; Deer

Valley Center Ltd., a California business,

dba Deer Valley Center, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-817-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on the parties’ Stipulation to Extend Date for Defendant to

Serve Expert Rebuttal Report and Discovery Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of

Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions, filed on

February 10, 2009. (docket # 22) The parties seek roughly three-week extensions of

Defendant’s rebuttal expert report deadline and response date to certain Plaintiff’s discovery

“in order to conduct settlement negotiations[.]” (Id. at 1 ) The Court deems the parties

stipulation to be a joint motion.

At the September 11, 2008 Rule 16 scheduling conference, and in its Rule 16

Amended Scheduling Order, docket # 19, the Court modified the dates only of the initial

Rule 16 Scheduling Order, docket # 13, imposed by the formerly assigned District Judge, the

Hon. Frederick J. Martone. One such amendment was to give the parties more time to

disclose expert reports and disclosures. The Court also made clear to counsel at the

Case 2:08-cv-00817-LOA Document 23 Filed 02/11/09 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

- 2 -

September 11, 2008 Rule 16 scheduling conference and in its Amended Scheduling Order

that these 

deadlines are real. The parties [were] advised that the Court intends

to enforce the deadlines set forth in this and the original Scheduling

Order. Counsel should plan their litigation activities accordingly.

Hostnut.Com, Inc.v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 2006 WL 2573201 *1

(D. Ariz. 2006). Continuances of these deadlines may be granted only

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

Settlement negotiations, however, do not constitute good cause. 

(docket # 19 at 4) Both Judge Martone’s and the undersigned’s scheduling orders forewarn

counsel that settlement negotiations do not constitute good cause to extend Rule 16

deadlines.

Counsel again use the wrong case initials despite the Court’s order to “use the

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

of the Court: No. CV-08-817-PHX-LOA..” (Id. at 5) This is not a trivial requirement; wrong

case numbers have led to incorrect filings and costly delays in other cases. Further violations

of the September 11, 2008 Order in this regard may result in the sanction of striking the

pleading or other document pursuant to LRCiv 83.1(f) or the Court’s inherent authority.

Good cause not appearing,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion Extend Date for

Defendant to Serve Expert Rebuttal Report and Discovery Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set

of Interrogatories, First Request for Production and First Request for Admissions, docket #

22, is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall use the following caption,

number and initials on all further pleadings or documents filed herein until further order of

the Court, to wit: No. CV-08-817-PHX-LOA.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-00817-LOA Document 23 Filed 02/11/09 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 FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall use proper capitalization in

all future captions as mandated by LRCiv 7.1(a)(3).

DATED this 11th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00817-LOA Document 23 Filed 02/11/09 Page 3 of 3