Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01907/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01907-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation

---

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

Linda Aguirre and Norma J. Garcia, as

surviving children of Johnny Griego,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

A.P. Green Industries, Inc., et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1907-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery, doc.

5, seeking an order authorizing Plaintiffs to immediately serve discovery requests on nonparties.

I. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that “[a] party may not seek discovery

from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a

proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by

these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1) (emphasis added). The

moving party must show good cause “to warrant the granting of any expedited discovery prior

to the Rule 26(f) scheduling conference.” Yokohama Tire Corp. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc.,

202 F.R.D. 612, 614 (D.Ariz. 2001); accord Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208

F.R.D. 273, 275 (N.D.Cal. 2002).

Case 2:11-cv-01907-FJM Document 7 Filed 09/30/11 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 -

II. Analysis

Plaintiffs seek a court order pursuant to Rule 26(d)(1), but fail to show good cause 

why the Court should grant its motion. Good cause exists “where the need for expedited

discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the

responding party.” Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276 (recognizing “that good cause is frequently

found in cases involving claims of infringement and unfair competition”); Best Western Int’l.,

Inc. v. Doe, 2006 WL 2091695, at * 1 (D.Ariz., July 25, 2006) (permitting expedited discovery

to identify unknown defendants). Plaintiffs’ only argument that the Court should grant their

Motion is that they have exercised “diligent efforts” thus far without ascertaining some

important information. (Doc. 5 at 3) Indeed, parties are expected to be diligent in their efforts.

However, Plaintiffs fail to state any reason why their “diligent efforts” outweigh the prejudice

to the Defendants.

Plaintiffs have filed this motion ex parte, stating only that they mailed a copy of the

motion and complaint to counsel for the various Defendants. In other words, Plaintiffs have not

yet complied with Rule 4. Ex parte motions are rarely justified. ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Keiicmiro,

2008 WL 2264241, at * 2 (D.Ariz. May 30, 2008) (citing Yokohama, 202 F.R.D. at 613). To be

justified, the evidence must show that the moving party’s cause will be irreparably prejudiced

if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion procedures. Id. In ACE

American Insurance, the plaintiff requested its motion be granted “[i]n the interests of

expeditiously resolving this matter, minimizing unnecessary litigation expenses, and keeping

in mind the interests of judicial economy.” Id. The District Judge there found no reason to stray

from regular noticed motion procedures and denied the plaintiff’s motion. Id. As with the

plaintiff in ACE American Insurance, Plaintiffs here have “offered no evidence to indicate that

adherence to the procedures contemplated by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

would somehow prejudice [their] case or cause undue expense.” 2008 WL 2264241, at * 2.

Morever, the Court is concerned that granting Plaintiffs’ motion at this time might violate Defendants’

constitutional due process right to fair notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Based on the foregoing,

Case 2:11-cv-01907-FJM Document 7 Filed 09/30/11 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, doc. 5, is DENIED without

prejudice.

Dated this 30th day of September, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01907-FJM Document 7 Filed 09/30/11 Page 3 of 3