Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01775/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01775-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Paul Samuel Meyers, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1775-PHX-JAT (LOA)

ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff’s two Motions to Compel. (Docs. 27, 30) Defendants

oppose the first motion as vague and untimely, doc. 29, and did not respond to the second

motion.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed this § 1983 civil rights action on August 19, 2010 and amended the

complaint on August 30, 2010. (Docs. 1, 5) After screening the Amended Complaint and

Defendants answered, the Court entered a scheduling and discovery order on December 23,

2010. (Doc. 12) The discovery dispute and dispositive motion deadlines were April 25, 2011

and June 24, 2011, respectively. (Id. at 2) The scheduling and discovery order makes clear that

[t]he Court will not entertain motions to compel discovery, motions for sanctions,

motions for protective orders, or the like unless and until there has been compliance

with the following procedure: In the event of a dispute over discovery, the parties

must confer in good faith, in person or by telephone, and attempt to resolve the

dispute. Rule 37(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 7.2(j), Rules of Practice

of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

Case 2:10-cv-01775-JAT Document 36 Filed 09/06/11 Page 1 of 5
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 -

(Id. at 3) (emphasis in original).

In both motions, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Pickett to produce

video evidence. (Docs. 27, 30) Plaintiff filed his first motion on July 8, 2011. (Id.) On July

15, 2011, Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s motion, stating that (1) Plaintiff did not consult with

the Defendant to resolve the issue before filing the motion, and (2) the motion is untimely

because the December 23, 2010 Scheduling Order, doc. 12, established an April 25, 2011

deadline for notifying the Court of discovery disputes. Rather than filing a reply, on July 29,

2011, Plaintiff filed a second Motion to Compel seeking the same relief. 

II. Rule 16, Fed.R.Civ.P.

“While the scope of the district court’s authority over pretrial proceedings is broad,

 it is tempered in pro se prisoner civil rights cases. For example, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26 specifically exempts pro se prisoner lawsuits from the initial disclosure requirements,

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv), and from initial conference requirements, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f).” In

re Arizona, 528 F.3d 652, 657 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam ), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129

S.Ct. 2852 (2009). “The district court is not required to conduct a pretrial conference in

prisoner cases, though there is no rule forbidding it. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(a).” Id. Nevertheless,

a scheduling order may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). Good

cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he or she cannot meet the deadline despite

exercising due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.

1992). The “good cause” inquiry “focuses on the reasonable diligence of the moving party.”

Noyes v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1174 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Johnson, 975 at 609).

The scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it[]” and Rule

“16 is to be taken seriously.” Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994).

District “courts generally look[] to the deadline for completion of discovery in

considering whether a motion to compel has been timely filed.” Rogers v. Brauer Law Offices,

PLC, 2011 WL 3665346, * 4 (D.Ariz., August 22, 2011) (quoting Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v.

Sonia Invs., 237 F.R.D. 395, 397 (N.D.Tex.2006) (citing Rossetto v. Pabst Brewing Co., 217

F.3d 539, 542 (7th Cir. 2000) (finding no merit to contention that district court’s denial of

Case 2:10-cv-01775-JAT Document 36 Filed 09/06/11 Page 2 of 5
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 -

discovery motion was error where the motion was filed two months after the date set by the

court for the completion of discovery and the plaintiffs gave no excuse for tardiness); Ginett v.

Fed. Express, 166 F.3d 1213, 1998 WL 777998, at * 5 (6th Cir. 1998) (Table) (finding no abuse

of discretion when the trial court denied a motion to compel filed two months after the

discovery deadline, because the plaintiff knew of the document at issue long before the

discovery deadline).

 The district court in Days Inn Worldwide identified several factors the courts have

considered in determining whether a motion to compel filed after the discovery deadline was

untimely or should be permitted: “1) the length of time since the expiration of the deadline, (2)

the length of time that the moving party has known about the discovery, (3) whether the

discovery deadline has been extended, (4) the explanation for the tardiness or delay, (5) whether

dispositive motions have been scheduled or filed, (7) the age of the case, (8) any prejudice to

the party from whom late discovery was sought, and (9) disruption of the court’s schedule.”

237 F.R.D. at 398. The Court will analyze these factors to determine whether good cause exists

to consider Plaintiff’s untimely discovery motion which, if granted, would necessarily result in

a de facto modification of the scheduling order.

III. Discussion

Plaintiff’s untimely discovery motion was first filed on July 8, 2011, over two months

after the April 25, 2011 discovery dispute deadline. (Docs. 12, 27) That is a significant delay

considering the likelihood that video recordings of the kind requested - Nice Vision video

recordings of prison activities - are not saved indefinitely. A two-month delay would only

decrease the likelihood of the video being available.

Plaintiff knew about the evidence in question at least four months before the April 25

deadline as shown by his letter to the defendants dated January 1, 2011. (Doc. 27) While this

Court appreciates, as the rules require, Plaintiff’s genuine efforts to personally and informally

resolve the discovery dispute, there comes a point in every case, as deadlines approach, when

a motion to compel must be filed. In this case, that point came before July 8, which was two

Case 2:10-cv-01775-JAT Document 36 Filed 09/06/11 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

months after the discovery dispute deadline, doc. 12, and at least six months after Plaintiff knew

about the evidence, doc. 27.

The Court has not extended, and Plaintiff has not requested that the Court extend, the

discovery dispute deadline. Moreover, Plaintiff does not explain in either Motion to Compel

why he failed to meet the discovery deadline, or even acknowledge that he failed to meet that

deadline. “[I]nadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not

usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S.

380, 392 (1993).

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on June 24, doc. 23, two weeks

before Plaintiff filed the first motion to compel, doc. 27. Thus, extending the discovery dispute

deadline now would necessarily disrupt the Court’s case management.

Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants explain how denying or granting Plaintiff’s discovery

motion prejudices him or them. In the Ninth Circuit, however, “[p]rejudice is not the relevant

inquiry. Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

seeking the amendment.” Global Bldg. Sys. v. Brandes, 2008 WL 477876, at * 3 (D.Ariz., Feb.

19, 2008) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Although

the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might supply

additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons

for seeking modification [of the Rule 16 schedule]. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry

should end.” Id. (emphasis added). As previously mentioned, Plaintiff has not been diligent in

pursuing a discovery order before the discovery dispute deadline expired and, therefore, the

inquiry will end.

IV. Conclusion

After weighing the above factors, the Court concludes that good cause does not exist

to consider Plaintiff’s untimely motion.

Accordingly,

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:10-cv-01775-JAT Document 36 Filed 09/06/11 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel, docs. 27, 30, are DENIED.

Dated this 6th day of September, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01775-JAT Document 36 Filed 09/06/11 Page 5 of 5