Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01279/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01279-2/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

Diana L. Garcia, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Salt River Project Agricultural

Improvement and Power District, a

political subdivision of the State of

Arizona, and International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers Local Union 266, John

Does I-V and Jane Does I-V; Black

Corporations I-III and White Partnerships

I-III, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-1279-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On April 24, 2006, Defendant SRP filed a Motion for Relief Due to Plaintiff's Failure

to Disclose Experts. (Doc. 30) The Court denied that motion based on a provision in the

parties' scheduling order requiring parties to arrange a conference call rather than file a

formal motion regarding discovery issues. (Doc. 54) Plaintiff now seeks an award of

attorneys' fees incurred in responding to Defendant's motion. (Doc. 66) Defendant argues

that its motion involved a scheduling issue not a discovery issue. For the following reasons,

the request for attorneys' fees will be denied.

According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), a Court "shall require the party

or the attorney representing the party or both to pay the reasonable expenses incurred because

Case 2:05-cv-01279-ROS Document 80 Filed 08/04/06 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

- 2 -

of any noncompliance with [the scheduling order], including attorney's fees." A court need

not award expenses if "the noncompliance was substantially justified or . . . other

circumstances make an award of expenses unjust." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). A court enjoys

"very broad discretion" when determining if an award of expenses is appropriate. Martin

Family Trust v. Heco/Nostalgia Enters. Co., 186 F.R.D. 601, 602 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting

Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1440 (10th Cir. 1984)). 

In this case, Defendant sought an extension of time in which to disclose its expert

witnesses. There was a good faith basis for Defendant to believe that this request did not

qualify as a discovery dispute subject to the requirements of the scheduling order. Also,

Defendant was eventually granted the relief it sought. Thus, an award of expenses would be

"unjust" and Plaintiff's motion will be denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. 66) is DENIED.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01279-ROS Document 80 Filed 08/04/06 Page 2 of 2