Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02096-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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 IN PHOENIX

ARIZONA NUTRITIONAL

SUPPLEMENTS, INC., an Arizona

corporation, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

PROTIENT, INC., a Delaware

Corporation; et al., 

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2096-PHX-LOA

THIRD REVISED SCHEDULING

ORDER

(Assigned to the Honorable Lawrence O.

Anderson)

Pursuant to the parties’ Joint Motion to Revise Discovery Deadlines in

Scheduling Order, the Court hereby revises the various deadlines for the judicial management

of this case as follows:

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

with the following deadlines. 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. See, 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

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 they have exchanged Rule 26 initial

Case 2:05-cv-02096-LOA Document 41 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 4
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 602, 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 -

disclosures.

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

parties by April 4, 2006.1

3. 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 June

22, 2006. Defendant’s disclosure of expert testimony and reports

required under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., shall be made by July

24, 2006. 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 August 14, 2006.

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). See, 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 2:05-cv-02096-LOA Document 41 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 4
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 -

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

proffered for deposition. See, Wong v. Regents of the University of California, 379 F.3d.

1097 (9th Cir., 2004); Rule 37(c)(1), FED.R.CIV.P.

4. 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. shall be completed by August

21, 2006.

5. Completion of all discovery: November 24, 2006.

6. Filing dispositive motions on or before December 22, 2006.

Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing,

Pursuant to Rule 5(d)(2)(D),. FED.R.CIV.P., 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.

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

available for use at an evidentiary hearing or trail 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.

Pursuant to Rule 611(a), Fed. Rules of Evid. and absent good cause shown,

the Court will not permit counsel during the trial to publish a document or other tangible item

to individual jurors expect to the jury as a whole through the courtroom’s audio/visual

Case 2:05-cv-02096-LOA Document 41 Filed 09/15/06 Page 3 of 4
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 -

equipment in order to avoid needless consumption of time.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court may set 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 trail, 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. See, 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.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all counsel shall comply with the Rules

of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“LRCiv ro

LRCrim”), as amended on December 1, 2004, and the Standards for Professional Conduct

for attorneys practicing in this federal court. The District Court’s Rules of Practice and the

subject Standards may be found on the District Court’s internet web page at

www.azd.uscourts.gov/. 

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 a U.S. magistrate

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

conference does not constitute good cause to continue or extend the deadlines set herein.

DATED this 14th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02096-LOA Document 41 Filed 09/15/06 Page 4 of 4