Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00840/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00840-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edward G. Lesofski, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Jarrod Lash, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-840 TUC DCB

ORDER

On September 12, 2013, the Court set a Second Scheduling Conference to be held

with the Judge’s law clerk, Greer Barkley, to discuss resetting the case management

deadlines in the case. Resetting deadlines is necessary due to the lack of discovery produced

by the Plaintiff. Currently pending before the Court are four discovery motions filed by the

Defendants. Both Defendants, the School and the Commission, ask the Court to deem their

Requests for Admissions admitted because Plaintiff has failed to respond. Both Defendants

ask the Court to compel the Plaintiff to respond to their discovery requests.

On September 12, 2013, in the Court’s Order setting the Second Scheduling

Conference, the Court also summarily granted a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by

Defendant Lightener, pursuant to LR Civ 7.2(i), because Plaintiff failed to file a Response.

The Court gave Plaintiff another 5 days to file the Second Amended Complaint to change the

caption, nunc pro tunc, for the Third Claim to be Fraud by Misrepresentation because

Plaintiff failed to comply with the original directive, issued by the Court on June 25, 2013,

to make this filing The Court also noted that the Plaintiff’s response to the Commission’s

Motion to Deem Defendant’s Requests for Admissions Admitted was due September 13,

Case 4:11-cv-00840-DCB Document 132 Filed 09/25/13 Page 1 of 4
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

2013, and “[a]ny failure by the Plaintiff to file a Response shall be deemed his consent to

summarily grant the Commission’s motion, pursuant to LR Civ. 7.2(i).” (Order (Doc. 124)

at 3.)

At the Scheduling Conference the Plaintiff’s attorney explained that the Plaintiff has

been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and is undergoing treatment, with a scan scheduled

on October 7, 2013, which should determine his progress and future course of treatment.

Subsequently, the Plaintiff will be in a better position to determine the specifics, including

length of time, necessary for him to complete discovery. As to his deposition, the parties

agree that if he is unable to come to Tucson the Defendants will conduct the deposition

electronically in Montana for purposes of filing dispositive motions and conducting

settlement discussions. The Defendants agree to coordinate their depositions so as to not

duplicate questions and to conduct the depositions at the same time, especially if Plaintiff

decides to travel to Tucson for it. In the event an electronic deposition is conducted, the

Plaintiff agrees to a second in-person deposition for purposes of any trial. Plaintiff’s attorney

Erin Kunzelman agrees to immediately provide Defendants with the documents which should

have been attached to Plaintiff’s initial disclosures. 

Subsequent to the Second Scheduling Conference, the Plaintiff filed the Second

Amended Complaint, nunc pro tunc, to correct the caption in the Third Claim and filed a

Motion for Extension to Respond to Discovery. Plaintiff has not separately responded to the

Defendants’ motions to deem their Requests for Admission admitted or the motions to

compel discovery. The Plaintiff explains his failure to prosecute the case and lack of

compliance with this Court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the local rules

of practice for this Court, are because:“Plaintiff is currently undergoing cancer treatment,

/////

/////

Case 4:11-cv-00840-DCB Document 132 Filed 09/25/13 Page 2 of 4
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

 making travel difficult at this time.” (Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 120) at 3), see also;

(Motion for Extension (Doc. 128)).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Extension for Response to Defendants’

Discovery (Doc. 128) is GRANTED until November 1, 2013. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause why this case should

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure regarding discovery, the Rules of Practice of the United District Court for the

District of Arizona, and the Court’s orders.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff has 14 days from the filing date of

this Order to show cause, supported by his medical records or letter from his doctor, that he

has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, when the diagnosis was made, the treatment he

has undergone, and to explain how his condition has prevented him from responding to

Defendants’ discovery requests.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 10 days of the scan scheduled for October

7, 2013, the Plaintiff shall file a Supplemental memo to show cause why this case should not

be dismissed which must show precisely any time needed for extending discovery, which

must include the following: 1) identify the Defendants’ discovery requests which remain

outstanding; 2) estimate the time needed to complete this discovery; 3) identify at least five

dates after November 1, 2013, that Plaintiff is available for deposition and specify whether

the deposition will be conducted electronically in Montana or in-person in Tucson. Any

asserted impediment to prosecuting this case asserted by the Plaintiff must be supported by

medical documentation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court denies as moot at this time the

Defendants’ discovery motions (Docs. 119, 123, 125, 126, 127). Subsequent to Plaintiff’s

filing the post-October 7, 2013, Supplemental Show Cause Memorandum, the Defendants

Case 4:11-cv-00840-DCB Document 132 Filed 09/25/13 Page 3 of 4
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 4

may reurge and supplement their discovery motions, and Plaintiff will timely file responses,

pursuant to the LR Civ. 7.2(c). Pursuant to LR Civ. 7.2(i), FAILURE TO FILE A

RESPONSE SHALL BE DEEMED CONSENT TO THE GRANTING OF THE MOTION.

If Plaintiff files any combined Responses, the document should clearly identify which

motions are being addressed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT ANY FURTHER FAILURES BY THE

PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL RULES, THE LOCAL RULES, OR

ORDERS OF THIS COURT, ESPECIALLY THOSE POSING AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE

PROSECUTION OF THIS CASE, MAY RESULT IN SANCTIONS BEING IMPOSED

AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff shall immediately mail a

copy of this Order to the Plaintiff.

DATED this 23rd day of September, 2013.

Case 4:11-cv-00840-DCB Document 132 Filed 09/25/13 Page 4 of 4