Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01980/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01980-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

David K. Everson and Patricia M.

Everson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

David D. Everson, Individually and as

President and Director of Mandalay

Homes, Inc.; Kristy Everson, aka Kristy

Dryja, wife of David D. Everson; and

Mandaly Homes Inc., , 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1980-PHX-GMS

ORDER

This afternoon the Court had a lengthy discovery conference with all parties to this

suit. After hearing disputes regarding the Everson’s failure to timely or completely answer

requests for admission, requests for production, and non-uniform interrogatory requests, and

issuing its tentative rulings on them, the matter turned to the Everson’s failure to appear at

their depositions that had been previously scheduled for December 17, 2010. After having

raised this matter, counsel for Defendant indicated that factual discovery closed on December

17, 2010, thus the Court’s Scheduling Order would need to be modified to permit Defendants

to re-notice the depositions of Plaintiffs. 

This Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 100), issued July 9, 2010 specifies a deadline

for fact discovery on December 17, 2010. Immediately thereafter it specifies that “[a]ll

depositions shall be scheduled to commence at least five working days prior to the discovery

Case 2:08-cv-01980-GMS Document 144 Filed 01/19/11 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 -

deadline. A deposition commenced five days prior to the deadline may continue up until the

deadline, as necessary.” Doc. 100 at ¶ 4(a) (emphasis added). Thus, Plaintiffs’ depositions

should have been scheduled by Defendants no later than December 10, 2010. Defendants

scheduled Plaintiffs’ depositions for one week, or five working days, after the actual

deadline. 

The Scheduling Order also specifies that “[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, the

Court will not entertain fact discovery disputes after the deadline for completion of fact

discovery.” Id. at ¶ 6(c). 

On January 13, 2011, Defendants’ counsel called because Plaintiffs (who are

representing themselves) were not returning calls or responding to e-mails or correspondence

concerning their failure to respond to discovery. In response, the Court set-up a discovery

dispute resolution conference for today, January 18, 2011. During that conference, the Court

learned that the deadline for fact discovery expired more than a month ago. 

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, fact discovery is closed. At this point, Defendants

have not established the “extraordinary circumstances” necessary for the Court to entertain

Defendants’ pending fact discovery disputes with Plaintiffs. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Defendants’ oral Motion to Compel

Discovery without prejudice to Defendants seeking to establish the extraordinary

circumstances necessary for the Court to take up this motion. The Court notes, however, that

in addition to the extraordinary circumstances, Defendants will also have to establish their

own diligence in conducting discovery to obtain an amendment to the Case Management

Order. See, e.g. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-9 (9th Cir. 1992).

Otherwise the expert phase of discovery is under way, with a pending dispositive motion

deadline. The parties are advised to pay strict attention to the Case Management Order

because as the Order itself notes, “the Court intends to enforce the deadlines set forth in

this Order, and should plan their litigation activities accordingly.”

DATED this 18th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:08-cv-01980-GMS Document 144 Filed 01/19/11 Page 2 of 2