Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00286/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00286-2/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

Victor M. Padilla, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bechtel Construction Company, etc.; et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-286-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This is the time set for the Rule 16(b), FED.R.CIV.P. Scheduling Conference.

Plaintiff is represented telephonically by counsel, Richard M. Grimsrud. Defendant Bechtel

Construction Company is represented by counsel, Joshua R. Woodard. Defendant Carpenter's

Local 408 is represented telephonically by counsel, Desmond C. Lee. Court reporter is not

present. 

All parties have heretofore consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(c). (docket # 13) Pursuant to the parties’ discussions with the Court today

and the various deadlines in their Rule 26(f) Joint Proposed Case Management Plan (docket

# 11), filed on September 1, 2006, as their proposed case management plan, the Court will

set the various deadlines for the judicial management of this case. 

IT IS ORDERED that the parties, by and through their counsel, shall comply with

the following deadlines which were mostly agreed to by all counsel. Stipulations extending

the time for the doing of any act required by the Court or the Rules of Civil Procedure will

Case 2:06-cv-00286-LOA Document 23 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 5
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 Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-08 (9th Cir.1992) (once

scheduling order is filed pursuant to Rule 16(b), the good cause standard controls over the

Rule 15(a) standard). In Coleman v. Quaker Oats Company, 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir.

2000), the Ninth Circuit stated:

 Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) liberally allows for

amendments to pleadings. In this case, however, the district court correctly

found that it should address the issue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

16 because it had filed a pretrial scheduling order that established a timetable

for amending the pleadings, and the deadline had expired before [plaintiffs]

moved to amend. 

- 2 -

be treated as a joint motion subject to Court approval. LRCiv. 7.3; Gestetner Corp. v. Case

Equipment Company, 108 F.R.D. 138 (D. Maine 1985)(good cause not shown to amend

scheduling order); Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir.1994)("Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 16 is to be taken seriously"). Continuances of these deadlines may

be granted only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the assigned trial judge.

Settlement negotiations, however, do not constitute good cause.

1. The parties confirm that no party has made his/its Rule 26(a) initial

disclosures prior to today. Each party shall exchange his/its Rule 26(a) initial

disclosures by November 3, 2006.

2. Filing motions to amend pleadings and motions to join additional parties by

January 19, 2007.

1

2. Because the Court believes that staggered expert disclosure is more fair and

will less likely result in requests for a modification of these deadlines, Plaintiff's disclosure

of expert testimony and reports required under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. shall be made

by April 2, 2007. Defendants' disclosures of expert testimony and reports required under

Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., shall be made by May 2, 2007. Plaintiffs' disclosure of true

rebuttal expert testimony and reports solely to contradict or rebut evidence as required under

Rule 26(a)(2)(C), Fed.R.Civ.P. shall be made by June 4, 2007. 

Each testifying expert witness (regardless of whether such expert witness has or

has not been specifically retained for this case, such as, a treating physician, or if the expert

Case 2:06-cv-00286-LOA Document 23 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 5
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 -

is an employee of the calling party) shall provide a written report to the adverse party as

required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. Signtech USA,

Ltd., 177 F.R.D. 459 (D. Minn. 1998).

No expert witness not timely disclosed will be permitted to testify unless the party

offering such witness demonstrates: (a) that the necessity of such expert witness could not

have been reasonably anticipated at the time of the deadline for disclosing such expert

witness; (b) the Court and opposing counsel or unrepresented party were promptly notified

upon discovery of such expert witness; and (c) that such expert witness was promptly

proffered for deposition. Wong v. Regents of the University of California, 379 F.3d. 1097 (9th

Cir. 2004); Rule 37(c)(1), FED.R.CIV.P.

3. Disclosure of all known witnesses, exhibits and other matters under Rule

26(a)(3), Fed.R.Civ. P. and supplementation of all discovery pursuant to Rule 26(e),

Fed.R.Civ. P. by July 6, 2007.

4. Completion of all discovery: August 6, 2007.

5. Filing dispositive motion(s) on or before September 7, 2007. Any crossmotion(s) for summary judgment or any other dispositive motion(s) may be filed on or before

October 8, 2007; provided, however, such motions are related solely to the specific issue(s)

directly raised in the initial dispositive motion(s).

 Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing,

Pursuant to Rule 5(b)(2)(D), FED.R.CIV.P. and this Court's adoption of rules

regarding electronic filing, the parties consent and agree that service under Rule 5(a) may be

obtained on the other party by delivering a copy of the document by electronic means.

Service by electronic means is complete upon transmission. The parties also advise the Court

that counsel are registered and will comply with the District Court's Case

Management/Electronic Case Filing ("CM/ECF") Administrative Policies and Procedures

Manual. See the District Court's internet site (www.azd.uscourts.gov) and click onto the

CM/ECF link for the details of the District Court's electronic filing system. Additionally, due

to the likelihood of the amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding discovery of

Case 2:06-cv-00286-LOA Document 23 Filed 10/18/06 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

electronically stored information becoming effective December 1, 2006, the Court and

counsel generally discuss issues relating to the preservation, production and privilege of such

information. See proposed amendments to Civil Rules 16, 26, 33, 34, 37 and 45; Anthony

J. Battaglia, Dealing With Electronically Stored Information: Preservation, Production And

Privilege, The Federal lawyer, May, 2006, pp. 26 - 31. All counsel expressly indicate no

concerns about any such issues at this time.

Counsel are hereby advised that the Court has various audio/visual equipment

available for use at an evidentiary hearing or trial at no cost to the Bar. This equipment

includes an evidence presentation system, which consists of a document camera, digital

projector, and screen. The projector may be used to display images which originate from

a variety of sources, including television, VCR, and personal computer. The document

camera may be used to display documents, photographs, charts, transparencies, and small

objects. For further information please contact the Court's A/V Specialist, Brian Lalley at

(602) 322-7131.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court may set an another Rule 16(b)

Scheduling Conference after the Court's ruling on all dispositive motions; after completion

of all discovery, if no dispositive motion is timely filed; or upon written request from any

party to discuss the setting of a jury trial and all issues related thereto, i.e. the length and

times of trial, motions in limine, Daubert hearings, etc. Counsel shall bring their calendars

with them to this conference.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall keep the Court apprised of

the possibility of settlement and should settlement be reached, the parties shall

immediately file a Notice of Settlement with the Clerk of the Court with a copy to this

Court's chambers. LRCiv 40.2(d). This Court views compliance with the provisions of

this Order as critical to its case management responsibilities and the responsibilities of the

parties under Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The parties are advised that when sufficient information has been disclosed

between the parties to fairly appreciate and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the

Case 2:06-cv-00286-LOA Document 23 Filed 10/18/06 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

claims and defenses alleged in this case, a settlement conference before another U.S.

magistrate judge may be requested. Delay in requesting, scheduling or concluding a

settlement conference or settlement negotiations do not constitute good cause to continue

or extend the deadlines set herein.

After considering Plaintiff's Reply filed on October 17, 2006 at 2:55 p.m. and

reconsidering its order,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court's order, faxed to all counsel of

record on October 17, 2006, denying Plaintiff's Motion to Reassign to Magistrate (Judge)

in Flagstaff or Back to District Judge (docket # 16) is hereby AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff's counsel orally requests that if there is a trial in this matter, that the

trial be held at the federal courthouse in Flagstaff, Arizona.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's oral motion for trial in Flagstaff

is DENIED.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00286-LOA Document 23 Filed 10/18/06 Page 5 of 5