Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02005/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02005-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Ryan Buckman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

MCI World Com, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2005-PHX-DGC (JM)

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of United States Magistrate Judge

Jacqueline Marshall’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to enlarge time to disclose expert

report and motion to substitute expert witness. Dkt. #116. The Court will deny the motion.

A. Background.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a telemarketing sales representative

beginning in February 2003. Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment in April 2004.

The State of Arizona indicted Plaintiff on charges of first degree murder in August

2005. Plaintiff currently is incarcerated in Maricopa County Jail pending trial.

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint against Defendant in state court

in December 2005. Defendant removed the action to this Court. Dkt. #1. The case was

referred to Magistrate Judge Marshall for pretrial proceedings. Dkt. #6.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Family and Medical

Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating his employment. Plaintiff

seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Dkt. #28.

Case 2:06-cv-02005-DGC-JR Document 122 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 3
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 -

B. Discussion.

The deadline for Plaintiff to disclose the identity of his expert witness was March 15,

2007 (see Dkt. ##23 and 27), and the deadline for the disclosure of expert reports was

September 10, 2007 (see Dkt. ##53 and 65). Plaintiff disclosed Morris Jackson as his

medical expert on April 1, 2007. See Dkt. #116 at 32-35.

In August 2007, Plaintiff requested an additional 30 days to disclose an expert report

and sought to substitute Dr. Ben Cecil as his medical expert. Dkt. ##67-68. The Magistrate

Judge denied Plaintiff’s motions in an order dated November 11, 2007. Dkt. #87. The

Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration for the reasons stated in the

November 11 order. Dkt. ##110. Plaintiff requests the Court to reconsider these rulings.

Dkt. #116.

“A district judge may reconsider a magistrate’s order in a pretrial matter if that order

is ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’” Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1041 (9th

Cir. 2002) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)); see Grimes v. City & County of S.F., 951 F.2d

236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)). Plaintiff asserts that he is at a

disadvantage in this case because he is an incarcerated pro se litigant. Dkt. #116 at 2. But

the Magistrate Judge explicitly considered the difficulty of preparing a case while

incarcerated in denying Plaintiff’s motions. Dkt. #87 at 1. The Magistrate Judge noted that

she previously had granted extensions of the expert deadlines and had denied a request to

stay discovery for the stated purpose of allowing Plaintiff to conduct discovery while

Defendant’s motion to dismiss was pending. Id. The Magistrate Judge concluded that in

light of the previous extensions, and because Plaintiff’s excuse of waiting for a ruling on the

motion to dismiss to conduct discovery was unjustified, Plaintiff had not shown good cause

to extend the expert deadlines. Id.

This conclusion is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Good cause exists when

a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Comm.’s Notes (1983 Am.); see Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff has not shown that

Case 2:06-cv-02005-DGC-JR Document 122 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -

he was diligent in retaining Dr. Cecil as an expert witness. The Court will deny the motion

for reconsideration. See Osband, 290 F.3d at 1042 (holding that the district court did not err

in denying motion for reconsideration of a magistrate’s order).

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #116) is denied.

DATED this 16th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02005-DGC-JR Document 122 Filed 01/17/08 Page 3 of 3