Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_17-cv-00082/USCOURTS-azd-4_17-cv-00082-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

H&E Equipment Services Incorporated,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Brad Ryberg, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-00082-TUC-JAS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ “motion to reconsider grant of leave for 

plaintiff to conduct expedited discovery and alternative motion to extend defendants’ 

response deadlines.” See Doc. 25. Defendants have also filed a request to refer the case 

to a Magistrate Judge for an early settlement conference. See Doc. 26. The Court notes 

that it can refer the case for a settlement conference at no cost to the parties and that it 

would stay all deadlines until after the settlement conference process is completed. 

 In light of these pending matters, the Court hereby stays Defendants’ obligation to 

respond to Plaintiff’s expedited discovery requests until the motion is fully briefed and 

the Court has issued an Order resolving the dispute. Plaintiff shall file a response to 

Defendants’ motion (Doc. 25) and request for a settlement conference by 3/31/17 and 

Case 4:17-cv-00082-JAS Document 27 Filed 03/15/17 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 

Defendants shall file a reply by 4/14/17.1 

 If Plaintiff is amenable to an early settlement conference, they should file a notice 

with the Court as soon as possible; such a notice by Plaintiff shall serve to automatically 

stay the deadlines (including the briefing deadlines above). Thereafter, the Court will 

find a Magistrate Judge who will conduct the settlement conference and issue an Order 

restating that all the deadlines shall remain stayed and give the parties further directives 

as to the settlement conference. If this is a viable option, the parties can avoid investing 

unnecessary time and costs in this case while settlement is being contemplated. 

 Dated this 15th day of March, 2017. 

Honorable James A. Soto 

United States District Judge

 

 

1

 The Court also notes that Defendants’ new employer (who is a non-party at this point in time) has filed a motion to quash. The response and reply shall be due pursuant to the time frames reflected in the Local Rules. If Plaintiff files a notice indicating that it is amendable to an early settlement conference, the deadlines to respond are automatically stayed as well. 

Case 4:17-cv-00082-JAS Document 27 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 2