Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00322/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00322-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other 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

Concrete Management Corporation, a

Colorado Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Double AA Builders of California, Inc., a

California corporation; Double AA

Builders, Ltd., an Arizona corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0322-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This case arises on the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order,

which seeks to extend, inter alia, the parties’ expert witness deadlines, filed nearly three

weeks after Plaintiff’s October 3, 2008 deadline to disclose its expert witnesses expired.

(docket # 27) Additionally, the parties move for a 60-day extension of all deadlines set forth

in the Court’s May 16, 2008 Amended Scheduling Order “due to unforeseen and

unanticipated problems, mostly of a technical nature concerning document preparation and

production.” Id. at 1. 

At the May 15, 2008 Rule 16 scheduling conference, and in its Rule 16

Amended Scheduling Order, docket # 20, the Court made clear to counsel that the Rule 16

“deadlines are real [and] the Court intends to enforce the deadlines set forth in [that] Order

and [counsel] should plan their litigation activities accordingly,” citing, among other cases,

Case 2:08-cv-00322-LOA Document 28 Filed 10/21/08 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 -

Hostnut.Com, Inc.v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 2006 WL 2573201 *1 (D. Ariz. 2006); Janicki

Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir.1994) (“[F]ederal Rule of Civil Procedure

16 is to be taken seriously.”) (emphasis in original). In fact, the Court encouraged counsel

to consider, and the Court accepted, their oral agreement at the May 15, 2008 scheduling

conference to extend the various deadlines initially outlined in Judge Murguia’s April 28,

2008, docket # 16, by 60 days. 

The Court will reluctantly partially grant the parties’ request to extend their

expert witness deadlines but will deny the balance of their joint motion due to an absence

of good cause to extend all deadlines.

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, docket

# 27, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s deadline to disclose expert testimony and reports required under

Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., is hereby extended to Monday, November 24, 2008.

2. Defendants’ deadline to disclose of expert testimony and reports required

under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., is hereby extended to Wednesday, December 24,

2008.

3. Plaintiff’s deadline to disclose rebuttal expert testimony and reports to solely

contradict or rebut expert opinion evidence is hereby extended, to Friday, January 23,

2009.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other deadlines are hereby

AFFIRMED and shall remain as outlined in the Court’s May 16, 2008 Amended Scheduling

Order. Counsel are hereby advised that additional requests for extensions of the Rule 16

deadlines will not likely be granted by the Court.

DATED this 21st day of October, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00322-LOA Document 28 Filed 10/21/08 Page 2 of 2