Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01633/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01633-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 740
Nature of Suit: Railway Labor Act
Cause of Action: 45:151 Railway Labor 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

Don Addington; John Bostic; Mark

Burman; Afshin Iranpour; Roger Velez;

Steve Wargocki,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

US Airline Pilots Association; US

Airways, Inc.,

Defendants. __________________________________

Don Addington; John Bostic; Mark

Burman; Afshin Iranpour; Roger Velez;

Steve Wargocki, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Steven Bradford; Paul Diorio; Robert

Frear; Mark King; Douglas Mowery; John

Stephan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1633-PHX-NVW

(consolidated)

ORDER

CV08-1728-PHX-NVW

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery

Related to the Damages Phase (doc. #469) and Defendant USAPA’s Response (doc. # 470).

In a previous Order of this court, trial in this case was bifurcated into two phases. (Doc. #

224.) The first phase dealt exclusively with the issue of liability and the propriety of

injunctive relief. In that phase, a jury found liability and the issue of injunctive relief, tried

to the bench, has been taken under advisement. The second phase relates to the causation

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 473 Filed 05/20/09 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 -

and quantification of any monetary damages owed to Plaintiffs. Trial in this second phase

has not yet taken place. The purpose of bifurcation was to expedite discovery, trial, and

appellate review on the fundamental question whether USAPA breached its duty of fair

representation. For this reason, the Court ordered as follows with respect to scheduling:

“Discovery on matters for which trial has been deferred under the foregoing paragraph need

not be done until after the April 28, 2009 trial.” (Doc. # 252.)

Plaintiff now moves for leave to conduct discovery relating to the damages phase of

the case. Under the previous order of this Court, no such leave is necessary; discovery may

commence immediately. That order was not altered by a subsequent order for accelerated

briefing on Defendant USAPA’s motion for summary judgment, made to accommodate the

damages trial date scheduled for the week of August 10 or August 18, 2009. (Doc. # 454.)

Plaintiffs’ motion will therefore be denied.

The Court notes Defendant USAPA’s erroneous claim that the inception of discovery

is restricted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). This argument misapprehends the form and function

of the rule. Rule 56(f) allows a party opposing a motion for summary judgment to assert, via

affidavit, that further factual discovery is necessary to oppose the motion. It does not restrict

the progress of discovery prior to or during the summary judgment briefing schedule.

The Court will now order the parties to submit a proposed discovery plan.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Leave to

Conduct Discovery Related to the Damages Phase (doc. # 469) is denied as unnecessary.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel on both sides confer forthwith and submit

to the Court a joint proposed discovery plan relating to the damages phase of the case on or

before May 26, 2009. If counsel are unable to agree on a joint proposed discovery plan,

counsel shall submit separate proposals on or before May 26, 2009. 

DATED this 19th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 473 Filed 05/20/09 Page 2 of 2