Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02191/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02191-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7422 IRS: Refund Taxes

---

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

Richard J. Emerine, II,

Plaintiff, 

v.

United States of America,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2191-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation and Joint Motion to Extend

Deadline to File Dispositive Motions and Take Deposition of Plaintiff (Dkt. 31). The Court

previously granted two extensions for discovery, and one extension of the dispositive motion

deadline. (See Dkts. 27, 30.) The parties’ second motion to extend the discovery cutoff date

stated that the parties were not requesting an extension of the dispositive motion deadline.

(Dkt. 29 at 2:10.) Thus the dispositive motion deadline passed on June 27, 2008. (See Dkt.

27.)

Rather than filing dispositive motions, the parties now seek to reopen discovery to

take Plaintiff’s deposition, and a further extension of time in which to file dispositive

motions. The parties state that this third extension is necessary because Plaintiff’s

deposition, originally scheduled for the discovery cutoff date of May 23, 2008, was

cancelled. The reason for the cancellation was the representation made on May 21,

2008—by an assisting attorney who has not appeared in this case—that Plaintiff would be

Case 2:06-cv-02191-SMM Document 32 Filed 07/02/08 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

- 2 -

seeking a stipulation to dismiss this action. The discovery cutoff date passed without a notice

or stipulation of dismissal.

These circumstances do not constitute good cause for the requested extension. The

Scheduling Order in this case stated that “last minute” or “eleventh hour” discovery would

be met with disfavor. (Dkt. 25, Order dated July 31, 2007 2:25-3:5.) That Defendant waited

until the last minute to depose Plaintiff makes this request even more disfavorable. However,

in the interests of justice and resolution on the merits, the Court will grant the parties two

weeks in which to depose Plaintiff, and a further two weeks in which to file dispositive

motions. Additionally, Plaintiff having failed to respond to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production by the Court-ordered deadline of

May 19, 2008, Plaintiff shall be prohibited from introducing into evidence any of the

documents requested in accordance with the Order dated April 23, 2008 (Dkt. 30).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting in part the parties’ Stipulation and Joint

Motion to Extend Deadline to File Dispositive Motions and Take Deposition of Plaintiff

(Dkt. 31). Defendant shall have until Friday, July 11, 2008 to take the deposition of

Plaintiff. The parties shall have until Friday, July 25, 2008 in which to file dispositive

motions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that having failed to produce the requested

documents, Plaintiff will be prohibited from introducing into evidence any of the

requested documents in this matter as contemplated by the Order dated April 23, 2008

(Dkt. 30).

DATED this 1st day of July, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02191-SMM Document 32 Filed 07/02/08 Page 2 of 2