Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00489/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00489-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Garrett J. Deetz,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-13-00489-PHX-DJH (ESW)

ORDER

Plaintiff Garrett J. Deetz, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex, 

Special Management Unit I (SMU I), in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights First 

Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging inadequate medical care 

constituting cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

(Doc.25). On August 9, 2013, the Court ordered an Early Mediation Conference, which 

stayed litigation for ninety days. (Doc. 11). The case did not settle in mediation.

The Court thereafter screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and ordered 

Defendants Vukcevic and Valenzuela to file an answer. (Doc. 23 at 14). Defendant 

Vukcevic filed an Answer on January 27, 2015. (Doc. 36). A Scheduling Order was 

issued on February 9, 2015, setting a discovery deadline of July 31, 2015. (Doc. 37). 

Plaintiff’s counsel thereafter filed a Notice of Appearance on February 24, 2015. (Doc. 

38). The parties subsequently stipulated to several discovery deadline extensions which 

were granted by the Court. (Docs. 50, 64, 84). The Court dismissed Defendant Vukcevic 

Case 2:13-cv-00489-DJH Document 108 Filed 01/22/16 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

from the case with prejudice on October 14, 2015. (Doc. 98). 

On November 9, 2015, Defendant Valenzuela filed an Answer. (Doc. 102). On 

January 14, 2016, the Court sua sponte extended a number of pretrial deadlines because 

Defendant Valenzuela appeared after previously set discovery deadlines had passed. 

(Doc. 105). On January 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Strike 1/14/16 Order, or in 

the Alternative, an Extension of Time for Discovery (First request)” (Doc. 106). The 

Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion and Defendant Valenzuela’s Response (Doc. 107). 

Plaintiff requests that the Court strike its January 14, 2016 Order (Doc. 105) and 

issue an amended Scheduling Order after Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 

82) is decided.1

 (Doc. 106 at 3). In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the deadlines in 

the January 14, 2016 Order be extended by forty days. The basis for Plaintiff’s Motion is

Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to Defendant Valenzuela’s December 14, 2015 

discovery requests. 

In the Motion (Id. at 2), Plaintiff’s counsel states that she initially believed that 

most of the discovery requests could be answered easily, but “[w]hen counsel returned 

after the holidays, counsel realized that she would need to consult with the client in order 

to produce complete answers, and that this would require more time than the deadline 

would allow.” On January 18, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel requested Defendant 

Valenzuela’s counsel to extend the time to respond to March 1, 2016. (Id.). Defendant’s 

counsel objected to the requested extension, citing the March 14, 2016 discovery 

deadline. (Id.). Defendant’s counsel, however, does not oppose an extension of the 

discovery deadline if Defendant’s dispositive motion deadline is also extended. (Doc. 

107).

The Court has broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation. See 

Zivhovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002). “A 

1 The undersigned Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the District Judge deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is currently pending. (Doc. 100). 

- 2 -

 

Case 2:13-cv-00489-DJH Document 108 Filed 01/22/16 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 

scheduling order ‘is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly 

disregarded by counsel without peril.’” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 

604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Gestetner Corp. v. Case Equip. Co., 108 F.R.D. 138, 

141 (D. Me. 1985)). Scheduling orders may be modified only upon a showing of “good 

cause.” Rule 16 (b), Fed. R. Civ. P. This “good cause” standard requires the Court to 

consider the diligence of the party requesting the extension. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats 

Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2000); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (finding good 

cause exists if the deadline cannot reasonably be met despite due diligence). “Moreover, 

carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant 

of relief.” Id. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown the diligence required for a finding of 

“good cause.” This ends the Court’s inquiry into whether an extension should be granted. 

See Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1295. In addition, the Court finds that granting Plaintiff’s 

Motion would cause undue delay in a case that is nearly three years old. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike 1/14/16 Order, or in the 

Alternative, an Extension of Time for Discovery (First request)” (Doc. 106). The 

deadlines as set forth in the Court’s January 14, 2016 Order (Doc. 105) are affirmed. 

Dated this 22nd day of January, 2016. 

- 3 - 

Case 2:13-cv-00489-DJH Document 108 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 3