Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08125/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08125-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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 L. Taylor; Dilawar Khan; Volena

Glover-Hale; Manuel Montoya, on behalf

of themselves and other persons similarly

situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

AutoZone Inc., a Tennessee corporation;

AutoZone Inc., a Nevada corporation;

AutoZoners LLC, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8125-PCT-FJM

ORDER

We now have before us plaintiffs’ Motion to Take Preservation Deposition of Edward

Lewis (doc. 320), defendants’ response (doc. 324), and plaintiffs’ reply (doc. 325).

Discovery in this action closed on October 21, 2011. Three years after the close of discovery

and on the eve of trial, plaintiffs now move to take a video preservation deposition of Edward

Lewis, whose recent deterioration in health might prevent him from traveling to testify at

trial. 

We will modify a Rule 16 scheduling order only upon the showing of good cause.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The diligence of the moving party is the hallmark of good cause.

Before the close of discovery, plaintiffs knew that Mr. Lewis, a non-party witness, had

Case 3:10-cv-08125-FJM Document 326 Filed 01/07/15 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

- 2 -

Parkinson’s Disease and lived in Indiana. Nevertheless, plaintiffs decided, before the close

of discovery, not to take his deposition. In doing so, plaintiffs accepted the inherent risk that

Mr. Lewis would be unable to testify at trial, either because of his known illness or for any

other circumstance that might develop. If he was a critical witness he would have been

deposed.

Plaintiffs’ only effort to establish good cause is their statement that they recently

learned that Mr. Lewis was no longer available to testify at trial. However, they make no

effort to explain either the nature or significance of Mr. Lewis’s testimony, or whether the

substance of his expected testimony cannot be elicited from another witness. Nor do

plaintiffs offer any suggestion of a less burdensome alternative to an eleventh-hour

deposition. Without more, we cannot conclude that plaintiffs acted diligently to preserve Mr.

Lewis’s testimony. Good cause does not exist to modify our scheduling order three years

after the close of discovery and on the eve of trial. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs’ Motion to Take Preservation Deposition of

Edward Lewis (doc. 320). 

DATED this 7th day of January, 2015.

Case 3:10-cv-08125-FJM Document 326 Filed 01/07/15 Page 2 of 2