Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02482/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02482-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Javier Torres, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Terry Goddard, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CIV 06-2482-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 82), to which

Defendants responded (Dkt. 85). The Scheduling Order in this case included the

following directive:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event of a discovery

dispute, the parties shall contact the Court to request a telephonic

conference prior to filing any discovery motions. The parties shall not

contact the Court regarding a discovery dispute unless they have been

unable to resolve the dispute themselves, despite personal consultation

and sincere efforts to do so. The parties shall not file any written

materials related to a discovery dispute or discovery motion without

express leave of Court. If the Court does order written submissions, the

movant shall include a statement certifying that counsel could not

satisfactorily resolve the matter despite personal consultation and sincere

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 113 Filed 05/28/08 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

- 2 -

efforts to do so, in accordance with LRCiv 7.2(j) of the Rules of Practice

of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

(Dkt. 66, Scheduling Order dated Sept. 26, 2007 at 4 (emphasis original).)

The parties did not request a telephonic conference prior to the filing of Plaintiffs’

motion, nor did the Court grant leave to file written materials. Plaintiffs do not provide

any explanation or justification for deviating from the Court’s directive. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt.

82).

DATED this 27th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 113 Filed 05/28/08 Page 2 of 2