Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00424/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00424-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

Michael Davis, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-424-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on Defendants’ Motion to Extend the Deadlines for Motions

In Limine , filed on February 24, 2010. (docket # 90) Defendants request that the Court extend

the time for the parties to file motions in limine from Tuesday, March 2, 2010, the date set in

the Court’s February 3, 2010 Rule 16 scheduling order, to Friday, March 12, 2010. (docket #

84 at 2) The reason for Defendants’ request is that “Plaintiff has not provided a single

disclosure statement in this case identifying witnesses or documents that will be presented at

trial[,]” so Defendants need more time to “thoroughly prepare” until Defendants “review

Plaintiff’s list of witness and exhibits as part of the proposed pretrial order.” (docket # 90 at 2)

The Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order is due no later than Tuesday, March 16, 2010.

This §1983 action was filed on November 22, 2006 and removed to this District

Court on February 22, 2007, over three years ago. (docket ## 1, 1-1, Exhibit A at 7-12) Because

defense counsel knew, or should have known, that initial disclosures were not required in

actions brought without a lawyer by a person in state custody, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv)

[formerly Rule 26(a)(1)(E)(iii)], Defendants had until October 15, 2008, and then to December

Case 2:07-cv-00424-LOA Document 91 Filed 02/25/10 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 -

15, 2008, to submit discovery requests to Plaintiff to ascertain the witnesses and exhibits

Plaintiff intended to call and use at trial. (docket ## 24 at 2, 35) Apparently they did not serve

any such discovery. Moreover, shortly after the parties consented to magistrate-judge

jurisdiction in December, 2009, docket # 74, the undersigned Magistrate Judge ordered a Rule

16 status conference for Tuesday, February 2, 2010 for the purpose of scheduling the trial dates,

final pretrial conference and other deadlines for the judicial management of this three-year-old

case. (docket # 77)

At the February 2, 2010 conference, Plaintiff appeared telephonically and

defense counsel was physically present whereupon the parties agreed upon mutually convenient

dates to resolve this case. At no time did Defendants’ counsel complain about not knowing the

identity of Plaintiff’s trial witnesses and exhibits or request that the motions in limine deadline

be set after the filing deadline for the Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order. Although at times the

telephone connection with Plaintiff at the SMU Unit 2 was poor, the Court recalls that Plaintiff

informed the Court and defense counsel that he would like to call as witnesses all current or

former defendants in this case. Further, continuing the motions in limine deadline at this time

would jeopardize the balance of the other deadlines set to resolve this case and give Plaintiff

only 4 days, until Tuesday, March 16, 2010, to file his responses to Defendants’ motions in

limine. 

Finally, the Ninth Circuit made clear that “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16

is to be taken seriously.” Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). The

dates and deadlines in the Court’s February 3, 2010 Rule 16 scheduling order are real, firm,

and, consistent with the undersigned’s responsibilities mandated by Congress in the Civil

Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. §471 et seq., will not be altered except only upon a

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

Due to the age of this case and good cause not appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s request for expedited consideration is 

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00424-LOA Document 91 Filed 02/25/10 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 -

GRANTED and all other requested relief in Defendants’ Motion to Extend the Deadlines for

Motions In Limine, docket # 90, is DENIED.

Dated this 25th day of February, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-00424-LOA Document 91 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 3