Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02614/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02614-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

Wayne F. Foraker,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Apollo Group, Inc., dba University of

Phoenix,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2614 PHX-DGC

ORDER

On November 22, 2005, the Court held a discovery conference call with the parties.

This Order will set forth the Court’s rulings on issues addressed during the call.

1. Plaintiff requested that the discovery deadline in this case be extended to

January 3, 2006, to permit the depositions of Plaintiff and several defense witnesses on new

issues raised in the Fourth Amended Complaint. The Court’s Order permitting Plaintiff to

file a Fourth Amended Complaint was entered on November 3, 2005, and stated that

additional discovery on the new (and limited) factual allegations could occur until

December 2, 2005. The Court further stated that it would not be inclined to grant additional

extensions. Because the Court’s Order was entered electronically, the parties received

notice t he same day – November 3, 2005. The Court views the time between November 3

and December 2, 2005, as sufficient for t he p art ies to have completed any necessary

discovery required by the relatively minor issues added by the Fourth Amended

Case 2:04-cv-02614-DGC Document 109 Filed 11/23/05 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

1

 This ruling means that Plaintiff will not have the opportunity to depose the defense

witnesses discussed during the conference call.

2

 Defense counsel contends that Plaintiff’s counsel cancelled the deposition because

Defendant had declined to produce documents withdrawn from disclosure in Defendant’s

Amended Eighth Rule 26 Supplemental Disclosure Statement. Plaintiff’s counsel denies

that this was the basis for the postp onement, stating instead that there was a calendar

conflict.

- 2 -

Complaint. The Court will not grant additional time to complete discovery.1

2. Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for November 22, 2005. Alt hough

the parties disagree on why the deposition was post p oned,2

 it is clear that Plaintiff did not

postpone the deposition until defense counsel called the office of Plaintiff’s counsel on

the morning of November 21, 2005, to confirm the start time. This untimely postponement

of the deposition was not appropriate. The Court will award $250 in sanctions against

Plaintiff and his counsel for the untimely postponement of the deposition. These

sanct ions shall be paid to Defendant on or before December 31, 2005. Defendant shall be

permitted t o complete the deposition of Plaintiff on a date agreeable to both parties, but in

no event later than December 16, 2005. 

3. Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff the documents initially disclosed in

Defendant’s Eighth Rule 26 Supplemental Disclosure Statement and wit hdrawn in

Defendant’s Amended Eighth Rule 26 Supplemental Disclosure Statement. These

documents shall be produced on or before December 2, 2005. 

4. The December 22, 2005 dispositive motion deadline shall remain in effect. 

DATED this 23rd day of November, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02614-DGC Document 109 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 2