Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02445/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02445-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Griselda Moran, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Qwest Communications Corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-2445-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint and an extension of the deadlines for

completing discovery. For the following reasons, the requests will be denied. 

The Rule 16 Scheduling Order entered on May 31, 2006, provided that all motions to

amend must be filed no later than August 1, 2006. (Doc. 33) Plaintiff waited until October

18, 2006, to seek leave to file her amended complaint. According to Plaintiff, a number of

events occurred after she filed the original complaint that "constituted unlawful

discrimination and retaliation." (Doc. 33) Plaintiff requests leave to amend her complaint

to add new counts based on these later events. Plaintiff also requests that the discovery

deadlines be extended to allow her time to investigate these new claims.

Once a district court has entered a Scheduling Order, modifying the scheduling order

is subject to the standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). Pursuant to Rule 16,

Case 2:05-cv-02445-ROS Document 42 Filed 12/05/06 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

27

28

1

 Plaintiff's motion is titled "Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint."

Technically, the motion should be denied as simply untimely because it was not filed before

the August 1, 2006 deadline set forth in the Scheduling Order. The proper course was for

Plaintiff to seek to modify the scheduling order. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608. But the Court

will construe the motion as a request to modify the scheduling order to prevent the same

issue being raised in the procedurally proper manner. 

- 2 -

changes to a Scheduling Order are appropriate only upon a showing of "good cause." The

"'good cause' standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment."

Id. at 609. "If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end." Id.

Plaintiff has not established that good cause exists for modifying the August 1, 2006

deadline.1

 The counts that she wishes to add to her complaint are based on events that

occurred before the August 1 deadline. Plaintiff was aware of the factual basis for some of

the new counts as early as August 2005. Thus, had Plaintiff been diligent she could have

sought to amend her complaint before the deadline. Plaintiff was not diligent so the inquiry

ends.

Plaintiff's request to modify the discovery deadlines is premised on the need for

additional investigation into the counts she wished to add in her amended complaint.

Because those counts will not be added, there is no need to modify the discovery schedule.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and

Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Doc. 38) are DENIED.

DATED this 5th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02445-ROS Document 42 Filed 12/05/06 Page 2 of 2