Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02816/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02816-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

We Are America/Somos America,

Coalition of Arizona, et al., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Board of

Supervisors, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV06-2816-PHX-RCB

ORDER

Presently pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion for

a pre-trial conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and LRCiv

16.2 (doc. 46). Plaintiffs are also seeking to have this action

assigned to the complex tract pursuant to LRCiv 16.2(b)(4).

Alternatively, plaintiffs unnecessarily indicate that the court

should assign this case to the standard track in accordance with

LRCiv 16.2(b)(3).

Background

On January 3, 2007, plaintiffs sought defendants’ agreement to

have this case “expedited” pursuant to LRCiv 16.1(b)(1), or to have

it placed on the “complex track” pursuant to LRCiv 16.2(b)(4).

 Plaintiffs cited the need for “extensive judicial

involvement” and the possibility for resolution “with limited

discovery[]” as the bases for their request. Memo. (doc. 47), exh.

A thereto at 1. Plaintiffs further requested what is colloquially

referred to as a “meet and confer” in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.

Case 2:06-cv-02816-DJH Document 51 Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 4
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 -

26 to “develop a proposed discovery plan[.]” Id.

They also sought defendants’ assistance in preparing a Rule

26(f) report and facilitating a preliminary scheduling conference.

The parties did confer telephonically on January 5, 2007, but from

defendants’ point of view, it was not a Rule 26(f) conference. See

id., exh. B thereto at 2. 

Four months later plaintiffs served various discovery requests

upon defendants. On April 10, 2007, defendants objected to that

discovery as “premature” based upon their belief that the parties

had not met and conferred as Rule 26(f) requires. Id. Defendants

also viewed those discovery demands as premature because at that

time their motion to dismiss was pending. Defendants also cited

the fact that the court had “not otherwise authorized discovery” as

a basis for objecting to plaintiffs’ discovery demands. Id. 

Holding fast to the view that a Rule 26(f) had already taken

place, nonetheless, plaintiffs advised defendants that they would

meet again in accordance with that Rule. See id., exh. C thereto.

Taking a different view of their obligations under Rule 26(f),

defendants reiterated that they would not respond to plaintiffs’

discovery demands while their motion to dismiss was still pending.

Id., exh. D thereto. Defendants further reasoned that because a

Rule 16 scheduling conference had not been set, they had no

obligation to meet and confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). 

The foregoing exchanges occurred mostly in April, 2007.

Plaintiffs did not, however, take any further action until almost

six months later when they filed this motion seeking a complex

track assignment of this case pursuant to LRCiv 16.2(b)(4).

In the meantime, on September 21, 2007, the court denied

without prejudice plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

Doc. 43 at 17. The court also granted in part and denied in

part defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. That denial was

based upon the court’s determination that additional briefing was

required “addressing the applicability of the second DeCanas test,

. . . , to the issue of federal preemption.” Id. 

Fairly recently, on July 17, 2008, defendants filed a “Notice

of Supplemental Authority[,]” alerting the court and plaintiffs to

Arizona v. Barragan-Sierra, 2008 WL 2764611 (Ariz. Ct. App. July

Case 2:06-cv-02816-DJH Document 51 Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 4
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 -

17, 2008), decided that same date. Defendants view that case as

bearing on the Younger abstention argument which their motion to

dismiss raises, and the second DeCanas test in particular. 

Discussion

“[C]ases requiring extensive judicial involvement, . . 

shall be . . . designated” as “complex” pursuant to LRCiv

16.2(b)(4). Because supposedly this case (1) involves “complex

issues of statutory and constitutional law[;]” and (2) “will affect

a growing number of arrests[,]” plaintiffs are seeking a complex

track designation. Memo. (doc. 46) at 5. Plaintiffs also note

what they perceive to be defendants’ recalcitrance in proceeding

with discovery.

Despite the foregoing, the court is not persuaded that this

case requires “extensive judicial involvement[]” so as to warrant

placing in on the complex track. Therefore, it DENIES

plaintiffs’ motion to the extent they are seeking a complex track

designation pursuant to LRCiv 16.2(b)(4). This case will proceed

under its current standard track designation. 

To facilitate the expeditious resolution of this case,

however, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs’ request for a Rule 16

pre-trial conference. Such conference will be scheduled as soon as

practicable following resolution of the defendants’ motion to

dismiss. Further, given defendants’ supplemental authority filed

on July 17, 2008 (doc. 50), the court hereby ORDERS plaintiffs to

file a supplemental brief within fifteen (15) days of the date of

entry of this order addressing the impact, if any, of defendants’

supplemental authority upon the outstanding DeCanas issue.

IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion (doc. 46) is GRANTED in part, to the

extent they are seeking a pre-trial conference, and DENIED in

part, to the extent they are seeking “complex track” designation

pursuant to LRCiv 16.2(b)(4); and

Case 2:06-cv-02816-DJH Document 51 Filed 09/30/08 Page 3 of 4
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 -

(2) Plaintiffs shall file a supplemental brief within fifteen

(15) days of the date of entry of this order addressing the impact,

if any, of defendants’ supplemental authority (doc. 50) upon the

outstanding DeCanas issue.

DATED this 29th day of September, 2008.

Copies to all counsel of record

Case 2:06-cv-02816-DJH Document 51 Filed 09/30/08 Page 4 of 4