Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00198/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00198-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

Dorothy O’Connell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

David R. Smith, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0198-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Scheduling Order and Motion to

Accelerate Consideration of her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 8.)

On February 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the

issue of whether Arizona law grants statutory authority “to anyone other than the medical

examiner to hire and fire personnel of the medical examiner’s office.” (Id. at 3.)

Simultaneously with her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Plaintiff filed the instant

request for a Rule 16 Scheduling Order accelerating briefing and ruling dates on her Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that an accelerated decision is

necessary because a mediation is scheduled to take place on March 9, 2007, thus enhancing

“the chances of an early resolution of” the present case. (Id. at 2-3.)

Defendants have no objection to the Court scheduling a Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial

Conference, but oppose accelerated consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment. (Dkt. 10.) Defendants contend that acceleration of this issue would be unfair

Case 2:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 12 Filed 03/12/07 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 -

because, on January 26, 2007, they filed a Motion to Dismiss all individually-named

Defendants from the claim on which Plaintiff seeks summary judgment. (Dkt. 10 at 3-4.)

Moreover, Defendants contend resolution of this claim will not impact the mediation because

Plaintiff’s counsel can “competently assess the contingencies related to” all pending motions.

(Id. at 4.) 

Defendants arguments are well-taken. Plaintiff’s First Amended Verified Complaint

contains nine claims, including a claim for punitive damages. Thus, the Court finds that

resolution of “the purely legal issue in [her] Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” will not

materially enhance the possibility of settlement in the present case. (Dkt. 8 at 2.) The Court

agrees that Plaintiff’s attorney can competently evaluate and assess any mediation issues that

take place on March 9, 2007, without this Court first ruling on her Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment. Finally, given Plaintiff’s view of the importance of the issue set forth

in her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the Court seeks to obtain the benefit of full

briefing by all parties. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Scheduling Order

and Motion to Accelerate Consideration of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 8.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for all parties shall appear before the

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee, in Courtroom 605, at 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix,

Arizona, on March 15, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for a status hearing. The status hearing will

address the March 9, 2007 mediation and the parties’ views on various scheduling issues. 

DATED this 9th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00198-SMM Document 12 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 2