Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00276/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00276-2/pdf.json

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

AZ Holding, L.L.C., a North Dakota

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Thomas C. Frederick and Christine J.

Cobb, husband and wife; RBW

Consultants, Inc., an Arizona corporation;

and Bumaro, L.L.C., an Arizona limited

liability company,

Defendants. _________________________________

Thomas C. Frederick and Christine J.

Cobb, husband and wife; RBW

Consultants, Inc., an Arizona corporation;

Bumaro, L.L.C., an Arizona limited

liability company,

Counterclaimants,

vs.

AZ Holding, L.L.C., a North Dakota

limited liability company,

Counterdefendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0276-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue the Close of Discovery by

Thirty Days, filed on September 2, 2009. (docket # 102) Plaintiff seeks a modification of the

March 17, 2009 Scheduling Order, docket # 81, by “extend[ing] the date by which discovery

must be completed from October 14, 2009 to November 20, 2009,” and extending the

Case 2:08-cv-00276-LOA Document 105 Filed 09/03/09 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 1

 See, www.swlaw.com/aboutus/

- 2 -

deadline for the “filing of dispositive motions . . . from November 20, 2009 to December 21,

2009 and the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment from Monday, December 21,

2009 to January 22, 2010.” (Id. at 1-2) Plaintiff’s justification for the requested

modifications is the “unanticipated change” to Plaintiff’s trial schedule in another case that

was “rescheduled from commencing on August 4, 2009 to instead commencing now on

September 15, 2009 and concluding on October 2, 2009.” (Id. at 2) Because of rapidly

approaching deadlines, the Court will expedite its ruling sua sponte prior to receiving

Defendants’ response.

The Court will not repeat the historical details of this lawsuit described in its

August 10, 2009 Order which precluded Defendants’ use of their expert witness in any

capacity other than as a rebuttal witness due to Defendants’ non-compliance with the same

Scheduling Order Plaintiff now seeks to modify. In the August 10, 2009 Order, the Court

wrote:

At the March 17, 2009 scheduling conference, the Court stressed to all

counsel that due to the 13-month delay since the filing of this lawsuit,

the deadlines in the Scheduling Order were 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., would not be

altered “except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the

assigned trial judge.” (docket # 81 at 2)

(docket # 99 at 2-3) (footnote omitted). The Rule 16 Scheduling Order made clear that its

deadlines are “to be taken seriously,” citing Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566

(9th Cir. 1994). (Id. at 3) Moreover, the agreed-upon Rule 16 deadlines are equally real and

firm to a plaintiff as they are to a defendant and will be applied evenly by the district court.

The Court is sympathetic that calendar conflicts may often arise that require coordinating

trial settings with a busy trial lawyer’s responsibilities in others cases, and perhaps the

assistance of other lawyers in the firm. Plaintiff’s counsel’s firm enjoys “more than 400

attorneys practicing in eight offices throughout the western United States and Mexico . . . .”1

Clearly, qualified legal help is readily available to Plaintiff’s counsel. This case has been

Case 2:08-cv-00276-LOA Document 105 Filed 09/03/09 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 -

pending since February, 2008. Further delay in this case is neither warranted nor justified.

Good cause not appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue the Close of Discovery

by Thirty Days, docket # 102, is DENIED.

Dated this 3rd day of September, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00276-LOA Document 105 Filed 09/03/09 Page 3 of 3