Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01792/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01792-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Ali Partovi, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carlos Martinez and Miguel Rodriguez,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1792-PHX-EHC 

ORDER

On April 30, 2010, the Court entered an Order (Dkt. 49 - Order) extending the

discovery period as requested by Plaintiff in a Motion to Extend Discovery (Dkt. 48) filed

on April 28, 2010. Plaintiff had argued in part that timely disclosure of documents had not

occurred. Plaintiff informed the Court in the motion that Defendants had refused to stipulate

to an extension of the discovery period. The Court’s Order (Dkt. 49) extended the discovery

period from May 14, 2010 to June 28, 2010. 

On the same date as the Court’s Order was entered, but following entry of the Order,

Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery (Dkt. 50).

Defendants argued that the Court previously had entered an Order (Dkt. 47 - Order) on

February 23, 2010 granting Plaintiff’s request to re-open discovery and set May 14, 2010 as

the discovery completion date but that Plaintiff had made no attempt to conduct any

discovery until April 6, 2010. Defendants argued that Plaintiff had not demonstrated any

type of good cause for the requested discovery extension in the motion filed on April 28,

2010.

In an Order (Dkt. 51 - Order) filed on May 11, 2010, the Court determined that

Case 2:06-cv-01792-FJM Document 55 Filed 06/11/10 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 -

Defendants’ Opposition Response (Dkt. 50) would be construed as a motion for

reconsideration of the Court’s April 30, 2010 Order and set a briefing schedule. 

Plaintiff filed a Response (Dkt. 52) on May 21, 2010. Defendants filed their Reply

(Dkt. 53) on June 1, 2010.

Plaintiff argues in the Response that counsel contacted Defendants’ counsel on or

about March 24, 2010 for assistance in determining which government agency might be in

possession of relevant documents and thereafter issued a subpoena to the U.S. Immigration

and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and Florence Correctional Center. In April 2010,

Plaintiff’s counsel received some documents and objections were made as to other

documents. Additional documents were received in May 2010. Plaintiff argues that the

extension of time has allowed ICE to continue to locate relevant documents. Plaintiff’s

counsel suggests that a protective order may be necessary for the release of other documents

and information. Plaintiff argues that deposition notices have been served, Defendants were

deposed on May 12, 2010, and discovery is moving forward. Plaintiff’s counsel anticipates

the completion of discovery by the present deadline of June 28, 2010.

In their Reply, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not demonstrated diligence in

seeking discovery, noting that Plaintiff waited nearly two months after the Court’s February

23, 2010 Order before commencing any discovery procedure. Defendants point out that

Plaintiff did not issue a subpoena until April 6, 2010. Defendants contend that Plaintiff has

not offered any explanation for why Plaintiff waited to initiate discovery. 

Pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(g)(1), the Court “will ordinarily deny a motion for

reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or

legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable

diligence.” 

The Court has considered the parties’ arguments and the circumstances presented.

Defendants have not demonstrated manifest error in the entry of Court’s Order allowing an

extension of the discovery period until June 28, 2010. 

//

Case 2:06-cv-01792-FJM Document 55 Filed 06/11/10 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Opposition Response (Dkt. 50), considered as a

motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April 30, 2010 Order, is denied.

DATED this 10th day of June, 2010.

Case 2:06-cv-01792-FJM Document 55 Filed 06/11/10 Page 3 of 3