Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01511/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01511-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights 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

Cynthia Williams, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Mesa, a municipal corporation;

John Santiago, individually, and in his

capacity as a Mesa Police Officer,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1511-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on the parties’ Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines

which the Court deems to be a joint motion to extend the Rule 16 discovery and dispositive

motion deadlines. (Doc. 26) The motion indicates the basis for the request is that“counsel for

City Defendants is in a six-week trial that started June 22, 2010, and may continue into

August.” (Id. at 1) Because diligence to complete discovery has not been demonstrated to

modify the firm Rule 16 deadlines, the parties’ motion will be denied.

I. Background

The docket reflects this action was removed on July 22, 2009 from the Superior

Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. (Doc. 1) The April 24, 2009 Complaint alleges

violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state-law claims

arising out of a traffic stop made by City of Mesa police officers on April 26, 2008. (Doc.

Case 2:09-cv-01511-LOA Document 27 Filed 07/15/10 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 -

1-4 at 5-13) On August 18, 2009, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was granted as to the City

of Mesa Police Department and denied as to the City of Mesa. (Doc. 8) 

At the September 21, 2009 scheduling conference, the Court stressed to counsel

that the “deadlines in the scheduling order were 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 upon a showing of good cause and

by leave of the assigned trial judge.” (Doc. 17 at 2) (emphasis in original; footnote omitted).

The scheduling order makes clear that the Rule 16 deadlines are “to be taken seriously,”

citing Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). (Id.) Further,

counsel were informed that “[t]he Court intends to enforce the deadlines in this Order.

Counsel should plan their litigation activities accordingly.” (Id.) With this in mind and the

active involvement of counsel, the Court fashioned mutually agreed-upon deadlines for the

fair and reasonably expeditious resolution of this case. The scheduling order mandates

supplementation of all discovery pursuant to Rule 26(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., by Friday, June 25,

2010, completion of all discovery by Friday, August 27, 2010, and dispositive motion(s)

filings by Thursday, September 30, 2010. (Id. at 4)

II. Good Cause and Rule 16 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992). A district court may modify the

pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite diligence of the party seeking the

extension.” Id. at 608; Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment).

“Good cause” means the Rule 16 scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite the party’s

diligence, citing Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed.

1990). Id. 

III. Discussion

The requisite good cause for extending the discovery and dispositive motion

deadlines has not been shown by the parties. The docket reflects that disclosures, requests

Case 2:09-cv-01511-LOA Document 27 Filed 07/15/10 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

1 The parties’ Stipulation refers to the undersigned as “Magistrate.” Congress

changed the formal title of United States Magistrate to United States Magistrate Judge in the Judicial

Improvement Act of 1990, effective December 1, 1990. Section 321 of Pub. L. No. 101-650; § 102,

as set out as a note under 28 U.S.C. § 631; Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1993)

(“The title was changed from ‘magistrate’ to ‘magistrate judge.’”); United States v. Steelwright, 179

F.Supp. 2d 567, 569 n.3 (D. Md. 2002). A United States magistrate judge is a “federal judge.” See,

e.g., Rule 1(b)(3), Fed. R. Crim. P. Thus, a magistrate judge may be appropriately called magistrate

judge or judge, but not magistrate.

- 3 -

for production and interrogatories have been exchanged but it appears that not a single

deposition has been taken by either side to date. Plaintiff filed her list of witnesses and

exhibits on June 25, 2010. (Doc. 25) The docket, however, does not reflect that Defendants

filed a similar list or filed a notice that such a list was exchanged with Plaintiff’s counsel.

Surely, defense counsel knew he had a lengthy trial scheduled in July and August, 2010 but

the docket does not reflect that he paid much attention to this case since March 1, 2010 when

he filed Defendants’ First Request for Production of Documents and Things to Plaintiff and

First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff. (Doc. 21) The parties do not indicate what additional

discovery they wish to take before the close of discovery but they have had nearly a year

since the September 21, 2009 scheduling conference to complete all discovery. This length

of time provided in the scheduling order is more than reasonably adequate to complete

discovery if diligence were exercised with the slightest amount of planning. The parties have

not demonstrated that the Rule 16 pretrial schedule “cannot reasonably be met despite

diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608. Like the 120 day

deadline to serve process pursuant to Rule 4(m), to hold that good cause has been shown here

“would allow the good cause exception to swallow the rule.” Townsel v. County of Contra

Costa, 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ motion to extend the Rule 16 discovery and

dispositive motion deadlines, doc. 26, is DENIED.

1

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defense counsel shall “use proper

capitalization,” i.e., use proper upper and lower case type to denote the correct spelling of

Case 2:09-cv-01511-LOA Document 27 Filed 07/15/10 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 -

the party names, in all future captions as mandated by LRCiv 7.1(a)(3). Future violations of

the Local Rules may result in the striking of the non-conforming motion, brief or other

document.

Dated this 15th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01511-LOA Document 27 Filed 07/15/10 Page 4 of 4