Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01463/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01463-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

Peggy Owen,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Maricopa County, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1463-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation to Extend Rule 16 Deadlines (Dkt. 30). 

The parties seek to extend the discovery deadline from May 23, 2008 to June 30, 2008, on

account of calendar conflicts, difficulty contacting deponent witnesses, and counsels’

respective heavy caseload. The parties state that an extension of the discovery deadline

will not impact the deadline for filing dispositive motions, which is currently set for June

27, 2008, or the Final Pretrial Conference, currently set for August 7, 2008.

The parties’ Stipulation is problematic for several reasons. First, the parties seek

to extend a deadline that had already passed at the time of the Stipulation. Second, the

parties state that the dispositive motion deadline will not be impacted by the requested

extension, yet the Stipulation pushes the discovery deadline to after the dispositive

motion deadline. Third, counsels’ inability to manage their calendars or schedule

Case 2:07-cv-01463-SMM Document 31 Filed 06/02/08 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 -

depositions within the allotted time for discovery does not constitute good cause for an

extension. 

The Scheduling Order in this matter expressly stated the Court’s expectation that

“each party will conduct discovery in such a manner as to complete, within the deadline,

any and all discovery,” and that last minute discovery “which requires an extension of the

discovery deadline will be met with disfavor, and could result in denial of an extension.” 

(Dkt. 21, Order dated Jan. 18, 2008 2:25-3:5.) The Court notes that the discovery and

dispositive motion deadlines in this case were later than those requested by the parties in

their Report re: Rule 26(f) Meeting. (See Dkt. 17, Proposed Pretrial Management Plan

6:2-3.)

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the parties’ Stipulation to Extend Rule 16

Deadlines (Dkt. 30). The deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 21) shall

remain in effect.

DATED this 2nd day of June, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01463-SMM Document 31 Filed 06/02/08 Page 2 of 2