Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03072/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03072-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

D. Douglas Gandy, D.O.,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Lynne Shaklan-Brown, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 06-CV-3072-PHX-PGR

ORDER

 

 

Currently before the Court is the parties’ Stipulated Motion to: (1) Stay the

Proceedings and (2) Refer the Matter to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Aspey or Another

Settlement Judge for a Second Settlement Conference.(Doc. 121.) The parties propose that

this Court order that within five (5) days after the conclusion of the settlement conference,

the parties file either a Notice of Settlement or stipulated proposal setting forth any remaining

deadlines in this case including, inter alia, a date by which supplemental discovery pertaining

to the pending counterclaim will be completed and the date by which Counterdefendant Dr.

Gandy must respond to Counterclaimant Dr. Shaklan-Brown’s pending Motion for Summary

Judgment. (Doc. #118.) 

According to the May 18, 2009 hearing, Mr. Enoch, counsel for Dr. Gandy,

represented to this Court that he would not seek to reopen discovery nor seek another round

of dispositive motions. Upon consideration of such statements, counsel for Dr. ShaklanBrown agreed that “all of the discovery that is necessary to resolve this matter is–has been

done.” However, upon learning of the imminent filing of a motion for summary judgment on

Case 2:06-cv-03072-PGR Document 123 Filed 06/24/09 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

1

 The pending Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. 118) was filed May 18, 2009.

Nearly one month later, on June 12, 2009, the pending Motion to Stay the Proceedings was

filed. (Doc. 121.) Therefore, providing Gandy with two weeks to file his Response to the

Motion for Summary Judgment, subsequent to the settlement conference, is more than

adequate under the Local Rules. See L.R.Civ. 56.1

- 2 -

the pending counterclaim, Mr. Enoch added a Rule 56 (f) caveat, stating that Dr. Gandy

would seek to establish whether relief was to be afforded to him under Rule 56 (f) to conduct

further discovery. The Court advises that the mere filing of the instant motion does not

amount to establishing discovery should be reopened under Rule 56 (f) nor why further delay

should result. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A.

Aspey for a second settlement conference.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if settlement is successful, the parties shall file a

Notice of Settlement within five (5) calendar days of the settlement conference.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the settlement conference is not successful, Dr.

Gandy shall file his Response to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment1

 within two

calendar weeks after the conclusion of the settlement conference. There shall be no further

discovery with respect to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment.

DATED this 23rd day of June, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-03072-PGR Document 123 Filed 06/24/09 Page 2 of 2