Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02045/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02045-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 12:1821 Default of Loan by Promissary Note

---

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

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as

Receiver for First National Bank of

Nevada, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The Mortgage Firm, Inc., a Florida

corporation dba Alternative Mortgage

Solutions, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-2045-PHX-LOA

ORDER

On the last day to complete discovery, January 8, 2010, Plaintiff Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as Receiver for First National Bank of Nevada,

filed a motion to extend the deadline for completion of discovery from January 8, 2010 to

February 1, 2010. (docket # 21) Plaintiff explains that an extension is necessary due to

“demands placed on FDIC’s limited resources,” including inadequate staffing, the

“movement of oversight attorneys,” and the relocation of files. (docket # 21) Defendant

The Mortgage Firm (Mortgage Firm) opposes the proposed extension because the issues in

support of FDIC’s motion are not new. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny

FDIC’s motion to extend.

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 vests the district court with early control

over cases ‘toward a process of judicial management that embraces the entire pretrial phase,

Case 2:08-cv-02045-LOA Document 24 Filed 01/22/10 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 -

especially motions and discovery.’” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s note, 1983

Amendment; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a) (“In any action, the court may order the attorneys and

any unrepresented parties to appear for one or more pretrial conferences. . . .”). Rule 16

further recognizes the inherent power of the district court to enforce its pretrial orders

through sanctions, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), and the discretion of the trial judge to apply an

appropriate level of supervision as dictated by the issues raised by each individual case. See,

e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2); In re Arizona, 528 F.3d 652, 657 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. denied,

--- S.Ct. ----, 2009 WL 1738654, (2009). 

Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant participated in the April 16, 2009

scheduling conference and had input in setting the deadlines incorporated in the Amended

Scheduling Order. (docket # 20) At the conference, and in the Amended Scheduling Order,

the Court stressed that all deadlines are real, firm and should be “taken seriously.” (docket

# 20 at 2) (citing Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994)). In fact,

at the scheduling conference, the Court generously extended the discovery deadline from

April 17, 2009 as agreed upon by the parties in their Report Regarding Rule 26(f) Planning

Meeting, docket # 7 at 6, and as ordered on December 9, 2008 by the formerly assigned

District Judge to January 8, 2010, nearly nine months later. While the Court is sympathetic

to Plaintiff’s staffing issues and the challenges created by the relocation of files, by

Plaintiff’s own admission, these issues are not new or unexpected yet FDIC waited until the

discovery deadline to seek a discovery extension. (docket # 20) Moreover, there is no

indication that Plaintiff’s internal organizational issues are likely to change in the near future,

thus, extending the discovery deadline serves no purpose. This lawsuit was removed to

federal court on November 5, 2008, almost 15 months ago. Granting more time to engage

in discovery, even if it would not alter the other Rule 16 deadlines, would be inconsistent

with the Ninth Circuit’s view that counsel and district courts must take these deadlines

Case 2:08-cv-02045-LOA Document 24 Filed 01/22/10 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

1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 mandates that Rule 16 and the other civil

procedural rules “[s]hall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and

inexpensive determination of every action.” Rule 1, FED.R.CIV.P. (emphasis added)

- 3 -

 “seriously,” Rule 1,1 FED.R.CIV.P., and this Magistrate Judge’s responsibilities under the

Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. §471 et seq. Schwarzkopf Technologies Corp.

v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 142 F.R.D. 420, 423 (D.Del. 1992) (“[f]ederal trial courts are

now required, by statute, to implement techniques and strategies designed to dispose of cases

in an efficient and inexpensive manner.”). Plaintiff has had more than a fair opportunity to

engage in meaningful discovery. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for

extending the discovery deadline. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of

Discovery Deadline, docket # 21, is DENIED. 

Dated this 21st day of January, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02045-LOA Document 24 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 3