Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02313/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02313-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

Stephen Murdock, et al, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Mingus Union High School District, et al,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2313-PCT-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Extend Deadlines (Doc. #68) which seeks a 60-day

extension of the August 31, 2005 discovery deadline and t he September 30, 2005 deadline

for dispositive motions. Defendants have filed an opposition (Doc. #70) and Plaintiffs

have filed a reply (Doc. #72). 

T he Court entered a Case Management Order on December 3, 2004. The order

established a discovery period of almost nine months. The Court informed the parties at

the case management conference that it did not intend to extend t his discovery period. In

addition, the Case Management Order contained the following paragraph:

10. The 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.

Doc. #5 at 5.

The Court has reviewed the docket in this matter and concludes t hat Plaintiffs were

not diligent in seeking discovery. Plaintiffs assert in their motion that they served written

Case 3:04-cv-02313-DGC Document 73 Filed 12/19/05 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

 Moreover, Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum raises concerns about a privilege position

taken by Defendants in an August deposition. Raising that issue for t he first time in a

reply memorandum filed more than three months after the close of discovery is neither

timely nor diligent. It also violat es t he Case Management Order, which provides that

“ [a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not entertain fact discovery disput es

after the deadline for completion of fact discovery . . . .” Doc. #5 at 3. 

- 2 -

discovery on M arch 29 and June 21, 2005. The docket does not include notices for either

of these discovery requests. Assuming they were served as Plaintiffs assert, they were not

first served until almost four months after entry of the Case M anagement Order. Moreover,

the docket shows t hat depositions were not taken until the last few months of the

discovery period. Plaintiffs did not seek to extend the discovery deadlines until after the

deadline for completing discovery and filing dispositive motions had passed.1

Rule 16(b) of t he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a case management

schedule “ shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause.” The Ninth Circuit

has instructed that the “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the

party seeking to extend the schedule. Johnson v . Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

609 (9th Cir. 1992). The record in this case does not reflect diligence by Plaintiffs in seeking

or completing discovery. Plaintiffs complain in their motion that Defendants improperly

delay ed the disclosure of documents, but the Court concludes that the nine-mont h

discovery period provided ample time for Plaintiffs to request all appropriate documents

and follow-up in depositions if necessary. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Deadlines (Doc. #68) is denied.

DATED this 19th day of December, 2005.

Case 3:04-cv-02313-DGC Document 73 Filed 12/19/05 Page 2 of 2