Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08213/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08213-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

Regina Lynn Villone, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United Parcel Services, Inc.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8213-PHX-LOA

ORDER

 This case arises on the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Extend Deadlines, doc.

41, which the Court construes as a joint motion to extend the Rule 16 scheduling order’s

deadlines. The parties indicate “Plaintiff Villone has experienced some complications related

to her health that the parties did not anticipate at the time they prepared the pretrial schedule in

this case. As a result, Ms. Villone has been forced to postpone her own deposition on more than

one occasion and may need to be deposed over multiple days because she cannot sit for long

periods of time.” (Id. at 1) No details are provided as to what Plaintiff’s health complications

are or how long she has suffered from them.

The Court’s docket reveals that the pro se Complaint was filed on November

30, 2009 and amended on June 14, 2010. (Docs. 1, 32) Defendant United Parcel Services, Inc.

(“UPS”) answered on February 23, 2010 and filed an Amended Answer on June 25, 2010.

(Docs. 11, 34) The April 21, 2010 scheduling order set various deadlines by mutual agreement

reached at the scheduling conference including a discovery deadline of January 28, 2011,. (Doc.

24 at 5) In fact, the Court allowed the parties a more generous deadline for completing their

Case 3:09-cv-08213-LOA Document 42 Filed 01/31/11 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 -

discovery than the September 3, 2010 deadline requested by the parties in their Rule 26(f) Joint

Case Management Plan. (Doc. 21 at 8)

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 vests the district court with early control over

cases ‘toward a process of judicial management that embraces the entire pretrial phase,

especially motions and discovery.’” In re Arizona, 528 F.3d 652, 657 (9th Cir. 2009), cert.

denied, S.Ct. , 2009 WL 1738654 (2009) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee’s

note, 1983 Amendment). “Rule 16 further recognizes the inherent power of the district court to

enforce its pretrial orders through sanctions, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), and the discretion of the

[trial] judge to apply an appropriate level of supervision as dictated by the issues raised by each

individual case.” Id. (citing e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)). Rule 16(b)(4), Fed.R.Civ.P.,

mandates that the scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s

consent.” Rule 16(b)(4), Fed.R.Civ.P. (emphasis added). Emphasizing the meaningful nature

of the Rule 16 deadlines, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

16 is to be taken seriously. . . .” Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir.

1994). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4)’ s “good cause” standard primarily

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Williams v. City of Mesa, 2010 WL

2803880, * 1 (D.Ariz. 2010) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

607-08 (9th Cir. 1992)). The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d

at 608. “Good cause” means the scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite party’s diligence,

citing 6A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed.

1990). Id.

The requisite good cause for extending the deadline for taking Plaintiff’s

deposition or other discovery has not been shown in this case. The Court’s file reflects that

UPS’ counsel has had more than a reasonably adequate amount of time to depose Plaintiff and

complete discovery. Plaintiff’s deposition was not noticed until December 13, 2010, doc. 37,

nearly eight months after the scheduling conference and only six weeks before the January 28,

Case 3:09-cv-08213-LOA Document 42 Filed 01/31/11 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 -

2011 discovery deadline. It was then re-noticed for January 21, 2011, seven days before

discovery ended. (Doc. ) Pro se Plaintiff and defense counsel were forewarned during the

scheduling conference by the Court and reinforced in the scheduling order itself that the

scheduling “deadlines are real, firm, and, consistent with the undersigned’s responsibilities

mandated by Congress in the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq., will not

be altered except only upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the assigned trial judge.”

(Doc. 24 at 3) (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). The scheduling order gives fair notice

to the parties that “[t]he Court intends to enforce the deadlines in this Order. Counsel should

plan their litigation activities accordingly[,]” citing Hostnut.Com, Inc.v. Go Daddy Software,

Inc., 2006 WL 2573201 *1 (D. Ariz. 2006). Like the 120-day deadline to serve process pursuant

to Rule 4(m), to hold that good cause has been shown here, “would allow the good cause

exception to swallow the rule.” Townsel v. County of Contra Costa, 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir.

1987). Also see, Zivkovic v. Southern Calif. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002)

(holding that party failed to demonstrate good cause where a continuance was requested four

months after the scheduling order was issued, and plaintiff was not diligent in complying with

the Rule 16 schedule) (citation omitted).

After consideration of the parties’ motion, the relevant case law and the

absence of good cause and a demonstration of the exercise of due diligence,

IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion to extend the Rule 16 scheduling

order’s deadlines, doc. 41, is DENIED. 

Dated this 31st day of January, 2011.

Case 3:09-cv-08213-LOA Document 42 Filed 01/31/11 Page 3 of 3