Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01121/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01121-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

Dave Hawkins, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

American Family Mutual Insurance

Company.

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1121-PHX-LOA

AMENDED 

SCHEDULING ORDER

This is the time set for the rescheduled informal Rule 16 scheduling

conference. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel, Michael H. Orcutt. Defendant is

represented by counsel, Lynn M. Allen. Court reporter is not present.

All parties have expressly consented in writing to magistrate-judge jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c) and Rule 73, Fed.R.Civ.P., with the approval of United States

District Judge Mary H. Murguia. (docket # 15)

Informal discussions are held regarding the Court’s case management practices,

the importance of strict compliance with the Rule 16 deadlines, and the opportunity for an

early settlement conference before another magistrate judge provided some preliminary

discovery has been completed of key parties and witnesses to ensure that an early settlement

conference is more meaningful. The Court and counsel discuss in detail the initial Rule 16

Scheduling Order, docket # 16, issued by the formerly-assigned District Judge. Counsel

Case 2:08-cv-01121-LOA Document 19 Filed 08/28/08 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

 B. General Policies:

4. Documents submitted for filing in the ECF system must be in a

Portable Document Format (.pdf). Documents which exist only in

paper form may be scanned into .pdf for electronic filing. All

electronic documents must be converted to .pdf directly from a word

processing program (e.g., Microsoft Word® or Corel WordPerfect®)

and must be text searchable.

ECF Manual, General Policies, (B)(4), at 3.

2 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

- 2 -

confirm that both sides have complied with FED.R.CIV.P. 26(a)’s initial disclosures as

ordered. 

Counsel shall comply with the Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) Administrative

Policies and Procedures’ Manual and, in particular, General Policy B(4), so that the Court

or chamber’s staff may copy and paste from any motion.1

 It is only exhibits, such as,

insurance documents, police and medical records, and similar documents not prepared by

counsel of record that may be scanned into the ECF system. When such documents are

scanned in, the Court is unable to copy and paste portions thereof into an order.

Counsel stipulate and agree to the following modifications to the initial Rule

16 Scheduling Order.

Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED vacating in its entirety paragraph 8 of the initial Rule 16

Scheduling Order, docket # 16 at 4 - 5, subject to resetting the dates for filing motions in

limine, the final Pretrial Order and Conference and jury trial after completion of all discovery

or after the Court’s ruling on any and dispositive motions. The first sentence of paragraph

6(a) only and paragraph 4(a) are vacated. Id. at 3.

The Court hereby modifies the dates only of the initial Rule 16 Scheduling

Order, docket # 16 as follows:

1. Paragraph 2 to Monday, November 3, 2008 regarding joining parties or

amending pleading.2 Id. at 1.

Case 2:08-cv-01121-LOA Document 19 Filed 08/28/08 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

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. 

- 3 -

2. Paragraph 4 to Wednesday, July 15, 2009 regarding the completion of all

discovery, including discovery of expert witnesses. Id. at 2. 

3. Paragraph 5(a) to Friday, January 16, 2009 regarding disclosure of

Plaintiffs’ expert(s) and Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., report(s); paragraph (5)(b) to

Friday, February 20, 2009 regarding disclosure of Defendant’s expert(s) and Rule

26(a)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., report(s); and paragraph (5)(c) to Friday, March 20, 2009

regarding disclosure of Plaintiffs’ true rebuttal expert(s) solely to contradict or rebut

Defendants’ expert witness(es) and Rule 26(a)(2)(C), Fed.R.Civ.P., rebuttal report(s). Id.

at 3. Paragraph 5(d) is vacated in its entirety.

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 is an employee of the calling party, such as, a concrete expert, shall provide a written

report to the adverse party setting forth the, at least, the requirements dictated by Rule

26(a)(2)(B). Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. Signtech USA, Ltd., 177 F.R.D.

459 (D. Minn. 1998).

Any expert witness not timely disclosed will not 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 were promptly notified upon discovery

of such expert witness; and (c) that such expert witness was promptly proffered for

Case 2:08-cv-01121-LOA Document 19 Filed 08/28/08 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

3

 The parties are on notice that this order supercedes the “30 day before trial”

disclosure deadline contained in FRCP 26(a)(3). Therefore, failure to timely supplement

pursuant to Rule 26(e), including attempts to include witnesses and exhibits in the Proposed

Final Pretrial Order or at trial that were not previously disclosed in a timely manner may

result in the exclusion of such evidence at trial or the imposition of other sanctions including

dismissal and the imposition of default pursuant to FRCP 37, the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure of the District Court, and the inherent power of the Court.

- 4 -

deposition. Wong v. Regents of the University of California, 379 F.3d. 1097 (9th Cir. 2004);

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

4. Except for impeachment evidence, disclosure of all known trial witnesses,

exhibits and other matters under Rule 26(a)(3), Fed.R.Civ. P. and supplementation of all

responses to formal discovery requests pursuant to Rule 26(e), Fed.R.Civ. P. by Monday,

June 1, 2008.

3

 Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.

2001); Wegener v. Johnson, 527 F.3d 687, 691 (8th Cir. 2008). 

5. Paragraph 7(a)’s dispositive motion deadline to Monday, August 17, 2009.

Id at 4. 

All other orders set forth in the initial Rule 16 Scheduling Order are hereby

AFFIRMED.

Stipulations extending the time for the doing of any act required by the Court

or the Rules of Civil Procedure will 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”). These deadlines are real. The parties are advised that the Court intends to

enforce the deadlines set forth in this and the original Scheduling Order. Counsel should plan

their litigation activities accordingly. Hostnut.Com, Inc.v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 2006

WL 2573201 *1 (D. Ariz. 2006). 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.

Case 2:08-cv-01121-LOA Document 19 Filed 08/28/08 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 4

 See, LRCiv 7.2(e).

- 5 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each side is limited to only one motion for

summary judgment that complies with the Local Rule’s page limitations4

 unless express prior

leave of the Court is granted for good cause shown.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented,

shall hereinafter comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for

the District of Arizona, as amended on December 1, 2007, and the Standards of Professional

Conduct. The District’s Local Rules and Standards may be found on the District Court’s

internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other rules may be found at

www.uscourts.gov/rules/.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall use the following

caption, number and initials on all further pleadings or documents filed herein until further

order of the Court, to wit: No. CV-08-1121-PHX-LOA.

DATED this 28th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01121-LOA Document 19 Filed 08/28/08 Page 5 of 5