Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01210/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01210-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Betty Ann St. George, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a foreign

corporation; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-1210-PCT-LOA

ORDER

On December 18, 2006, the day of the deadline for compliance, Plaintiffs filed

their Motion to Continue the court-ordered deadline to December 22, 2006 so that Plaintiffs

may properly designate the portion of the record supporting their allegations and to file their

memorandum of law. (docket # 395) The subject Motion provides, as required by LRCiv

7.3(b), that Defendants "are not opposed to this" motion provided their deadline for their

memorandum is also extended to December 22, 2006. The reason identified in the Motion

for a short continuance is essentially because Plaintiffs' counsel has been too busy to work

on this case because he is "prepar[ing] for a trial and pre-trial matters in Case No.

CV-04-2567-PHX-SRB, with trial scheduled in the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona on January 9, 2007." (Id.)

The Court's November 11, 2006 Order is patently clear that the Court's

reluctance to grant Plaintiffs additional time to December 18, 2006, given over the

Case 3:04-cv-01210-LOA Document 396 Filed 12/21/06 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 -

Defendants' strenuous objections, to comply with the mandates of this Order, which gave

Plaintiffs a second-chance opportunity beyond the specific mandates of LRCiv 56.1(b) ("for

each paragraph of the moving party’s separate statement of facts, a correspondingly

numbered paragraph indicating whether the party disputes the statement of fact set forth in

that paragraph and a reference to the specific admissible portion of the record supporting the

party’s position if the fact is disputed") and established Ninth Circuit precedent previously

cited herein to counsel, was a "very limited opportunity." (docket # 394 at 3) In fact, the

Court stated: "Any deviation by Plaintiffs beyond the limited scope of this order will result

in the Court ruling upon the pending dispositive motions with the mindset that if Plaintiffs

have not specifically cited where in the record such factual allegation exists, it must not

exist." (Id. at 4) 

The Ninth Circuit has made clear that deadlines set by the district court are to

be "taken seriously." Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir.1994). More

recently the Ninth Circuit has stated:

"[] In these days of heavy caseloads, trial courts in both the federal and state

systems routinely set schedules and establish deadlines to foster the efficient

treatment and resolution of cases. Those efforts will be successful only if the

deadlines are taken seriously by the parties, and the best way to encourage that

is to enforce the deadlines. Parties must understand that they will pay a price

for failure to comply strictly with scheduling and other orders, and that failure

to do so may properly support severe sanctions and exclusions of evidence. 

Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir.2005); Hostnut.Com, Inc.

v. Go Daddy Softwar, Inc., 2006 WL 2573201 *3 (D. Ariz. 2006). "Further, [] Rules are

rules-and the parties must play by them. In the final analysis, the judicial process depends

heavily on the judge's credibility. To ensure such credibility, a district [or magistrate] judge

must often be firm in managing crowded dockets and demanding adherence to announced

deadlines." Singh v. Arrow Truck Sales, Inc., 2006 WL 1867540 *2 (E.D. Cal 2006).

Plaintiffs' counsel has known since February 7, 2006 when District Judge 

Susan R. Bolton set Vied v. Pinnacle Nissan Infinity (CV 04-2567-PHX-SRB) for trial on

January 9, 2007 that he would need to responsibly prepare for trial. (docket #46) Moreover,

Plaintiffs' counsel never objected or raised the issue that he would have difficulty complying

Case 3:04-cv-01210-LOA Document 396 Filed 12/21/06 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

- 3 -

with what some may view as a generous opportunity to correct a significant defect in

Plaintiffs' Statement of Facts. There comes a point when the court must enforce its deadlines

and that point has been reached in this case.

Good cause not appearing and notwithstanding the fact that Defendants have

no objection with conditions,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue the court-ordered

deadlines of December 18, 2006 to December 22, 2006 is DENIED. The Court will rule upon

the pending dispositive motions based upon the parties' previously-filed Statements of Facts.

Dated this 21st day of December, 2006.

Case 3:04-cv-01210-LOA Document 396 Filed 12/21/06 Page 3 of 3