Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00190/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00190-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure 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

1

 Ordinarily, an affirmative defense is lost if it is not included in the answer or

amended answer. Santos v. Alaska Bar Association, 618 F.2d 575, 576-77 (9th Cir.1980).

A federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and

the court should raise the question sua sponte. Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455 (2004)

(citing Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rasool Kashkool,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael Chertoff, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0190-PHX-LOA

ORDER

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

Plaintiff is represented by counsel, Eric G. Bjotvedt. Defendants are represented by counsel,

AUSA Cynthia M. Parsons. Court reporter is not present. 

Although their Answer, docket # 15, fails to allege any affirmative defenses1

and Defendants expressly “raise[] no affirmative defenses” in the Joint Case Management

Report, docket 22 at 2:20, Defendants contend this District Court “lacks [subject-matter]

jurisdiction.” Plaintiff claims, however, that this District Court has subject-matter jurisdiction

pursuant a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331as the “complaint arises under the

Immigration and Nationality Act”; the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361; the All Writs Act,

28 U.S.C. § 1651; and/or the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. including

§ 706(1) and § 555 because of Defendants’ alleged “unreasonable delay in processing of

Case 2:07-cv-00190-LOA Document 25 Filed 07/10/07 Page 1 of 6
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 -

Plaintiff’s application for adjustment of status” to permanent resident. (docket # 1 at 1)

Defense counsel agrees to promptly inform Plaintiff’s counsel in writing the basis upon

which Defendants contend that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Absent agreement

on the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, counsel are encouraged to address this issue early

on in this litigation.

All parties have heretofore consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(c). (docket # 18) Pursuant to the parties’ discussions with the Court today

and the various deadlines in their proposed Rule 26(f) Joint Case Management Report,

docket # 22, filed on July 6, 2007, 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 are 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 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)("[F]ederal

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 do not constitute good cause. These deadlines are real. The parties

are advised that the Court intends to enforce the deadlines set forth in this Order, and should

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

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

1. The parties confirm that Plaintiff has made his Rule 26(a) initial

disclosures on July 2, 2007. Defendants have not made their Rule 26(a) initial disclosures but

shall do so on or before Friday, July 13, 2007 about which Plaintiff’s counsel has no

objection. Defendants are expressly cautioned that failure to meet this deadlines may result

in exclusion. Salgado v. General Motors Corp., 150 F.3d 735, 742 (7th Cir.1998) ( “[T]he

sanction of exclusion is automatic and mandatory unless the sanctioned party can show that

Case 2:07-cv-00190-LOA Document 25 Filed 07/10/07 Page 2 of 6
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 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. 

- 3 -

its violation of Rule 26(a) was either justified or harmless.”); Saudi v. Valmet-Appleton, Inc.,

219 F.R.D. 128, 132 (E.D.Wis. 2003).

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

August 27, 2007.

2

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 October 19, 2007. Defendants' disclosures of expert testimony and reports required under

Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., shall be made by November 16, 2007. Plaintiff's 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 December 17, 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

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

Case 2:07-cv-00190-LOA Document 25 Filed 07/10/07 Page 3 of 6
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 -

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 December 31, 2007.

3

4. Completion of all discovery: January 31, 2008.

5. Filing dispositive motion(s) on or before March 14, 2008. A Cross-motion

for summary judgment may be filed within 30 days of the adverse party's dispositive motion;

provided, however, such motion is solely related to the specific issue(s) directly raised in the

initial dispositive motion(s). Absent express prior leave of the Court, each side shall be

entitled to file only one motion for summary judgment that complies in all respects to the

Local Rules.

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. Counsel also advise the Court that they

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. 

Case 2:07-cv-00190-LOA Document 25 Filed 07/10/07 Page 4 of 6
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 -

The Court and counsel also generally discuss issues relating to the preservation,

production and privilege of electronically-stored information, including the form or forms in

which it should be produced. See amendments to Fed. Civil Rules of Proc. 16(b)(5), 26(f)(3),

33, 34, 37 and 45, effective December 1, 2006; Dawn M. Bergin, New Federal Rules on EDiscovery - Help or Hindrance?, Arizona Attorney, December, 2006, pp. 22 - 28; Anthony

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

Privilege, The Federal lawyer, May, 2006, pp. 26 - 31. 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 evidenciary presentation system, which consists of a document

camera, digital projector, and screen (“ELMO”). 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 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 since the case will be tried to the Court,

rather than to a jury, in addition to filing a Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order, each party

shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in concise with separately

numbered paragraphs by the same date the Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order is due. 

These proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be submitted in both written

form and on an IBM-compatible computer disk in WordPerfect® X3 format. 

Case 2:07-cv-00190-LOA Document 25 Filed 07/10/07 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

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

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.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in light of the parties’ filing their Case

Management Report on July 6, 2007, albeit late, the July 6, 2007 OSC is hereby

DISCHARGED.

DATED this 9th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00190-LOA Document 25 Filed 07/10/07 Page 6 of 6