Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00140/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00140-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

Olga Clarissa Ortega, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of

State of the United States, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-0140-PHX-LOA

ORDER

The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s November 18, 2011 Disclosure of Expert

Witness and Motion to Extend Time to File Written Report, doc. 44, and Respondent’s

Response to Petitioner’s Motion to Extend Time Limits, doc. 45, which does not oppose

Petitioner’s Motion. 

The Court’s May 16, 2011 Rule 16 scheduling order sets firm deadlines for,

among others, Petitioner’s disclosure of expert testimony and reports by November 18,

2011, all discovery be completed by Monday, May 4, 2012, and dispositive motions be

filed by June 22, 2012. (Doc. 33) 

Petitioner’s Motion indicates that “[b]eginning in early [to] mid-October,

undersigned counsel . . . began interviewing potential witnesses who could qualify as

experts under the Federal Rules.” (Doc. 44 at 1-2) He “submits that good cause exists to

extend the dates for submission of the reports required by Fed. R. Evid. 26(a)(2)(B).” (Id.

at 2) Counsel acknowledges he “is aware of the Court’s admonition in its Order of

Case 2:11-cv-00140-SPL Document 47 Filed 12/13/11 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 -

August 10, 2011, regarding the lack of diligence shown thus far and the unlikely need for

extensions of the scheduling order. However, counsel submits that an extension in this

matter will not prejudice the Respondent and that counsel has shown diligence in

obtaining the services of an expert witness.” (Id.) Petitioner’s counsel represents he has

interviewed eight potential experts to testify in this case and has settled on using Anna

Ochoa O’Leary, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Practice Dept. of Mexican American

Studies, at the University of Arizona. Dr. O’Leary will purportedly testify regarding “her

knowledge of the behavior of migrants whose children are born in the United States and

yet are raised in Mexico [and] that it is [a] common practice for children born in the U.S.

to also have been issued birth certificates or registrations in Mexico.” (Id. at 1) 

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 exercise of

diligence to do so, citing Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231

(2d ed. 1990). Id. “In these days of heavy case loads, trial courts . . . set schedules and

establish deadlines to foster the efficient treatment and resolution of cases.”

Hostnut.Com, Inc. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 2006 WL 1042335, * 1 (D.Ariz. April 19,

2006) (quoting Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005)

(internal quotation marks omitted); also see, Williams v. City of Mesa, 2010 WL

2803880 (D.Ariz. July 15, 2010) (denying stipulated extension of Rule 16 deadlines

because diligence to complete discovery had not been demonstrated).

While she has timely disclosed her expert’s identity, Petitioner requests additional

time to submit Dr. O’Leary report and opinions as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and the

Court’s May 16, 2011 Rule 16 scheduling order. Because Petitioner’s counsel has

demonstrated due diligence in searching and locating an expert witness; the requested

Case 2:11-cv-00140-SPL Document 47 Filed 12/13/11 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 -

extension for disclosure of Dr. O’Leary report will not alter the scheduling order’s

deadlines for completing discovery and filing dispositive motions nor prejudice

Respondent’s compliance with the scheduling order; and Respondent has filed a

dispositive motion on December 9, 2011, doc. 46.; the Court will grant Petitioner’s

Motion.

Good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Extend Time to File Written Report,

doc. 44, is GRANTED. Petitioner’s disclosure of all expert opinions and report under

Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., as to Anna Ochoa O’Leary, Ph.D. only, shall be made no

later than Friday, January 6, 2012.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s disclosure of expert opinions

and reports required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and Rule 26(a)(2)(C), Fed.R.Civ.P., shall be

made by Friday, February 3, 2012.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that true rebuttal expert opinions and reports

solely to contradict or rebut evidence as required under Rule 26(a)(2)(A),(C), Fed.R.

Civ.P. shall be made by Friday, February 24, 2012. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming all other orders and deadlines set forth

in the Court’s May16, 2011 Scheduling Order. (Doc. 33)

Dated this 12th day of December, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00140-SPL Document 47 Filed 12/13/11 Page 3 of 3