Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02399/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02399-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Declaratory Judgement

---

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 

Airbus DS Optronics GmbH,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Nivisys LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-14-02399-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are two discovery motions filed by Plaintiff. First, 

Plaintiff seeks to have this Court compel certain third parties to respond to Rule 45 

subpoenas and for leave to disclose those responses to Defendants after the close of 

discovery. Doc. 223. With regard to the motion to compel, it does not appear that any of 

the third parties were given notice of this motion or the opportunity to respond as the 

mailing certification does not reflect any service on said parties. Thus, the motion to 

compel is denied for lack of notice. 

 Moreover, discovery in this case closed on October 14, 2016. Plaintiff waited 

until September 9, 20, 29 and 29, 2016, to serve the four subpoenas at issue. Although 

Plaintiff included return dates on the subpoenas that were before the close of discovery, 

none of the four third parties at issue could comply before October 14, 2016. Thus, 

Plaintiff asks this Court to extend Plaintiff’s deadline to make disclosures until October 

29, 20161

 (three days after each subpoena will be complied with based on Plaintiff’s 

 

1

 The Court notes this is a Saturday; thus, Plaintiff may really mean October 31, 

Case 2:14-cv-02399-JAT Document 227 Filed 10/21/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

current understanding). Plaintiff has failed to show any cause, much less good cause, 

why these subpoenas could not have been issued after this Court’s Rule 16 conference on 

December 10, 2014, but before September 2016 to ensure time for compliance before the 

close of discovery. 

 This Court’s Rule 16 Order requires the parties to make disclosures “in a timely 

manner so as to allow for meaningful discovery prior to the discovery deadline....” Doc. 

16 at 4. Here, Plaintiff seeks to make these disclosures after the close of discovery, 

giving Defendants no opportunity to take any discovery regarding this addition 

information. Further, Plaintiff seeks to make these disclosures after the dispositive 

motion deadline of October 28, 2016, giving Defendants no opportunity to use or address 

this information in their motions, if any. These two facts result in significant prejudice to 

Defendants. 

 Finally, the Court’s Rule 16 Order warned: “‘last minute’ or ‘eleventh hour’ 

discovery which results in insufficient time to undertake additional discovery and which 

requires an extension of the discovery deadline will be met with disfavor, and may result 

in denial of an extension, exclusion of evidence, or the imposition of other sanctions.” 

Doc. 16 at 3, n. 2. Additionally, the Court has previously told the parties that there would 

be no further extensions of these deadlines. Doc. 186 at 2, n.1. Thus, Plaintiff was well 

aware that delaying the issuance of these subpoenas until so close to the close of 

discovery could result in preclusion. For all of the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion at 

Doc. 223 will be denied. 

 Second, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant Nivisys, LLC (hereinafter 

“Defendant”) to produce additional documents in response to Plaintiff’s request for 

production served on September 6, 2016. Doc. 225. (It is undisputed that Defendant 

timely responded on October 6, 2016; the issue is whether Defendant should provide 

additional documents). The parties were unable to call the Court and schedule the 

required discovery dispute conference call before the close of discovery (October 14, 

 

2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-02399-JAT Document 227 Filed 10/21/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

2016); thus, Plaintiff filed the pending motion to compel on the day discovery closed.2

 In addition to all of the warnings stated above regarding the Court’s unwillingness 

to entertain last minute discovery disputes, the Court’s Rule 16 order also includes the 

following Order: “[T]he parties shall complete all discovery by the deadline set forth in 

this Order (complete being defined as including the time to propound discovery, the time 

to answer all propounded discovery, the time for the Court to resolve all discovery 

disputes, and the time to complete any final discovery necessitated by the Court’s ruling 

on any discovery disputes).” Doc. 16 at 3, n. 2. Clearly filing a discovery motion on the 

day discovery closes runs afoul of all of this Court’s requirements. 

 Thus, Plaintiff’s motion at Doc. 225 is untimely, and will be denied accordingly. 

Additionally, it is procedurally improper under this Court’s Rule 16 scheduling Order. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s discovery motions (Docs. 223 and 225) are 

denied. 

 Dated this 21st day of October, 2016. 

 

 

2

 The parties are very familiar with the required procedure, since they have had six separate discovery dispute hearings not counting the current dispute. Nonetheless, the Court’s Rule 16 Order requires: “In the event of a discovery dispute, the parties shall jointly contact the Court via conference call to request a telephonic conference. ... The parties shall not file any written materials related to a discovery dispute without express leave of Court.” Doc. 16 at 4. 

Case 2:14-cv-02399-JAT Document 227 Filed 10/21/16 Page 3 of 3