Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01576/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01576-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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

SPINEDEX PHYSICAL THERAPY,

U.S.A., INC, an Arizona corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

UNITED HEALTHCARE OF ARIZONA,

INC., an Arizona corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-1576-PHX-JAT (lead)

CV 04-1578-PHX-JAT (cons)

CV 04-1579-PHX-JAT (cons)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Rule 16 Scheduling Order.

Plaintiff seeks to extend both the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines and, in essence,

to have this Court reconsider its previous discovery ruling (which would necessitate

extending the discovery deadline to complete this additional discovery). Plaintiff's bases this

need for reconsideration of the discovery order on the Court's November 10, 2005 Order

which stated that Defendant's counterclaim was not preempted by ERISA. Plaintiff asserts

that this holding causes the need for Plaintiff to take a 30(b)(6) deposition on counterclaim

issues, but that the Court previously held that with respect to the Complaint no 30(b)(6)

deposition would be permitted because of the discovery limitations of ERISA. Thus,

Plaintiff concludes that once the Court held that the counterclaim was not preempted by

ERISA, this additional discovery became appropriate.

Case 2:04-cv-01576-JAT Document 95 Filed 11/30/05 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 1

 Defendant has now responded and opposes any continuance of the deadlines.

- 2 -

Without considering the merits of Plaintiff's requested additional discovery, Plaintiff

faces several procedural hurdles. First, the Court's Order regarding the counterclaim was

issued on November 10, 2005, discovery closed on November 15, 2005, yet Plaintiff did not

seek an extension of the discovery deadline until November 21, 2005. Under Local Rule

Civil 7.3(a), the Court cannot extend a deadline after the expiration of the deadline unless the

late-moving party can show excusable neglect. Plaintiff has made no such showing in this

case. Second, Local Rule Civil 7.3(b) requires the moving party on any motion for extension

of time to state the position of all other parties. Plaintiff also failed to meet this requirement.1

Third, as the parties are well aware, they must call on a conference call and have a hearing

on a discovery dispute before they can file any discovery motion (as stated in this Court's

Rule 16 scheduling order). Plaintiff's de facto motion to reconsider this Court's prior

discovery order was filed in violation of this requirement.

Thus, based on the foregoing procedural defects in Plaintiff's Motion, the Motion will

be denied. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Rule 16 Scheduling Order (Doc.

#93) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the dispositive motion deadline of January 6,

2006, is confirmed.

DATED this 30th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-01576-JAT Document 95 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 2