Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00134/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00134-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Seaboard Surety Company, a New York

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

Grupo Mexico, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican

corporation, and DOES I-CI,

Defendants.

NO. CIV-06-0134-PHX-SMM

ORDER

On July 27, 2006, at the request of counsel for Grupo Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

(“Grupo”), the Court held a discovery hearing with counsel for both Grupo and Seaboard

Surety Company (“Seaboard”). The hearing was of an urgent nature because, in an order

entered May 17, 2006, the Court allowed both parties a limited time period to conduct

discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction, which expires August 15, 2006. (Dkt. 19.)

Among other things, the primary impetus for the hearing was the unilateral

cancellation of a deposition by counsel for Seaboard on the afternoon before the deposition

was to commence. At the hearing, and in correspondence to opposing counsel, counsel for

Seaboard relied on her interpretation of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as

authority for the unilateral cancellation. It is the Court’s opinion that counsel’s interpretation

Case 2:06-cv-00134-SMM Document 29 Filed 07/31/06 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

-2-

is incorrect. Even if correct, the unilateral cancellation of a deposition is not sanctioned by

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court’s order (see dkt. 19) and the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure afford access to the Court for resolution of perceived discovery

violations. Any further activities of this nature may result in sanctions.

Counsel for both parties were directed to restrain themselves from writing

invective and vindictive letters to each other. Their correspondence does not serve the

interests of their clients in advancing the case. Given the Court’s lengthy discussion with

counsel concerning all discovery tactics to date, as well as the Court’s explanation as to

which tactics were improper, any Motion for Sanctions based on the conduct of all attorneys

of record to date will be denied as moot. The case restarts with a clean slate.

During the lengthy hearing, it became clear to the Court that the parties will

not be able to conclude discovery by the August 15 deadline. As a result, counsel for both

parties agreed to cooperate with each other in a professional manner, pursuant to a new

timetable for completing discovery and briefing the issue of personal jurisdiction.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED VACATING the timetable set forth in the

Court’s previous Order concerning discovery of personal jurisdiction. See Dkt. 19 at 9-10.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that both parties shall have until October 6,

2006 to complete discovery concerning the issue of personal jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Grupo shall file its motion to dismiss for

lack of personal jurisdiction no later than November 17, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Seaboard shall file its response to Grupo’s

motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction no later than December 15, 2006. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Grupo shall file its reply to Seaboard’s

response to Grupo’s motion no later than January 12, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00134-SMM Document 29 Filed 07/31/06 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

-3-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for both parties shall work

together in a professional manner to finalize a stipulated protective order to be submitted to

the Court for approval.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if the parties cannot agree on whether the

deposition of Mr. Garcia shall take place in the United States or in Mexico, counsel for both

parties shall, on a date agreed upon by the parties, simultaneously file written briefs no

longer than two (2) pages total (including any exhibits and attachments) setting forth each

of their respective positions on the issue and legal authorities in support thereof. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any Motion for Sanctions based on the

conduct of all attorneys of record to date will be denied as moot.

DATED this 28th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00134-SMM Document 29 Filed 07/31/06 Page 3 of 3