IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Adam Roth,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Allstate Insurance Co., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 17-CV-00587-TUC-FRZ

ORDER 

This case is subject to the Mandatory Initial 

Discovery Pilot. See Doc. 4.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. All parties must comply with the rules of this Court.1 Violations of court orders or failure 

to litigate in compliance with the rules may result in dismissal of all or part of a case, the 

imposition of sanctions, or perfunctory disposition of pending matters.2

2. The Court will not extend deadlines absent good cause.3 Any motion for leave to amend 

must be filed in accordance with LRCiv 15.1, and all electronic filings must be filed in a 

PDF text-searchable format in accordance with LRCiv 7.1(c).4

3. The parties must confer — pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) — within 21 days to discuss: 

(i) any matters related to jurisdiction, venue, or joinder; (ii) initial disclosures; 

(iii) discovery; (iv) a schedule for all pre-trial procedures; (v) potential modifications to 

pre-trial procedures due to the specifics of the case; (vi) all prospects for settlements; and 

(vii) any matters which counsel feel will help efficiently & justly resolve this case.

 

1 Both counsel and litigants must follow the District of Arizona Local Rules of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”) and 

the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed.R.Civ.P.”). See, e.g., Brinkman v. Ryan, No. 14-CV2093 (D. Ariz., August 2, 2016) (establishing an adjudicative framework that construes “Rules” “of procedure 

as to effectuate justice”).

2

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41; see also, LRCiv 7.2 (“[i]f a motion does not conform in all substantial respects with the 

requirements of [the Rules], or if the opposing party does not serve and file the required answering memoranda 

[the] Court may dispose of the motion summarily”). Further, the Court may strike any filing that does not 

comply with the Rules.

3

See Soilworks, LLC v. Midwest Indus. Supply, Inc., No. 06-CV-2141 (D. Ariz., March 5, 2008) (holding that 

settlement negotiations do not constitute “good cause” to extend a deadline); see also, Hernandez v. Rivera, No. 

16-CV-00343 (D. Ariz., October 17, 2016) (tacitly instructing that efforts for peaceful resolution through 

settlement negotiations should be ongoing).

4

See, e.g., The 10 Most Frequent Violations of the Rules of Practice (D. Ariz., Rev. July 15, 2013) (“Local rules 

are ‘laws of the United States’ ”) (citing United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 575 (1958) (Whittaker, J.)).

Case 4:17-cv-00587-FRZ Document 8 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 4
4. The parties must file a joint Case Management Report within 10 days after the Rule 26 

Conference that includes:5

i. The jurisdictional basis of the case, citing specific statutes;

ii. The Nature of the Case: further elucidating the factual and legal basis of each of Plaintiff’s 

claims and Defendants’ defenses; 6

iii. The specific Factual Issues genuinely in dispute, and whether any issues can be narrowed by 

stipulation or motions;

iv. The specific Legal Issues genuinely in dispute, and whether any issues can be narrowed by 

stipulation or motions;

v. The parties, if any, that have not been served;

vi. The names of parties not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction;

vii. Whether dispositive or partially dispositive issues can be decided by pre-trial motions;

viii. Whether the case is suitable for reference to arbitration, to a master, or to a for trial;

ix. The status of all related or relevant cases pending before other adjudicators;

x. The prospects for settlement — including: (1) why or why not each party wishes to have a 

settlement conference with a judge or magistrate; and (2) how settlement efforts can be 

assisted by the Court; 

xi. The extent and nature of discovery, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or 

limited to or focused upon particular issues;

xii. A discussion of any issues related to preservation, disclosure, or discovery of electronically 

stored information, including the parties’ preservation of electronically stored information 

and the form or forms in which it will be produced;

xiii. A discussion of any issues relating to claims of privilege or work product;

xiv. A statement of when the parties served their MIDP discovery responses, and whether the 

parties anticipate or experienced any problems in producing the MIDP initial discovery 

responses and, if so, a concise description of those issues;

xv. Whether a jury trial is appropriate;

xvi. Proposed deadlines for: (a) completing discovery; (b) filing dispositive motions; (c) pretrial 

disclosure of witnesses and expert testimony pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) and (3); and (d) 

lodging a proposed joint pretrial order; (e) a date by which the parties shall have engaged in 

face-to-face good faith settlement talks; and (f) for a Pretrial Scheduling Conference;7

xvii. Estimated length of trial;

xviii. All matters which counsel feel will aid in an efficient & just resolution.

 

5 The parties are jointly responsible for initiating the communication necessary to prepare this filing.

6

Included, the parties must list of the elements of proof necessary for each count of the Complaint and each 

affirmative defense. Where the burden of proof shifts, each party shall list the elements of proof that party must 

prove in order to prevail. The list of elements of proof must contain citations to relevant legal authority (i.e., 

United States Supreme Court cases, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cases, Arizona State case and statutory law, 

or other authority as dictated by law).

7

If the parties believe that discovery will require more than four months, counsel must provide an explanation 

showing why a lengthier period for discovery is necessary.

Case 4:17-cv-00587-FRZ Document 8 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 4
5. Plaintiff must offer an initial written settlement with a descriptive damages computation at 

least 2 days before the joint Case Management Report is due, and Defendants must 

respond in writing within 5 days.8

6. Once court ordered disclosure pursuant to General Order 17-08 has been completed, each 

party must provide notice of compliance.9

7. Motions to dismiss filed without a notice that the parties met and considered the 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 standard and costs of pretrial motions will be perfunctorily denied.10

8. The parties must provide a “Joint Case Status Update” 3 days before the Pretrial 

Scheduling Conference11 that reflects recent developments in settlement efforts and 

provides compelling reasons whether LRCiv 83.10 should be applicable.

12

9. Parties cannot file written discovery motions without leave of court. Request for leave 

must come only after sincere efforts to resolve the matter through in-person consultation.13

10. Before filing any motion for summary judgment the parties must exchange 2-pg. letters 

describing the anticipated motions and responses, identifying the issues and claims on 

which summary judgment will be sought, and the legal basis for the motions and 

responses. After consulting, the parties must file these letters with the Court and request a 

pre-motion conference. The purpose of the conference will be to narrow issues and focus 

the briefing.

 

8

See William W. Schwarzer, et al., The Elements of Case Management, Fᴇᴅᴇʀᴀʟ Jᴜᴅɪᴄɪᴀʟ Cᴇɴᴛᴇʀ (3rd Ed. 

2017) (explaining that “Judges should focus attention on [cognizable damages] early because it is crucial to 

[preventing] plunging into litigation without making a cost–benefit calculation. [The written demand provides] a 

“reality check” about settlement [and focuses] attention on what would be an acceptable outcome for the 

[parties].”); see also, Judge Susan J. Dlott, Standing Order on Civil Procedures, at pg. 2 (S.D. Ohio, May 2014).

9 Chief Judge Raner C. Collins, General Order 17-08 (D. Ariz., April 14, 2017) (“The discovery obligations 

addressed in this General Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) and are framed as courtordered mandatory initial discovery ....”).

10 LRCiv 12.1(c) (“No motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or counterclaim, pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or motion for judgment on the pleadings on a claim or counterclaim, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), will be considered or decided unless the moving 

party includes a certification that, before filing the motion, the movant notified the opposing party of 

the issues asserted in the motion and the parties were unable to agree that the pleading was curable in 

any part by a permissible amendment offered by the pleading party. [A] motion that does not contain 

the required certification may be stricken summarily.”).

11 See Schwarzer, supra, n. 8 at pgs. 3-7 (“The conference should be a moment of truth for the pleader and an 

opportunity for thoughtful discussion among the parties. [Once] federal jurisdiction has been established, the 

most important function of the conference is the identification of pivotal issues.”).

12 28 U.S.C. § 652; see also, id., at pg. 8 (“It is useful for a judge to inquire about settlement whenever meeting 

with the lawyers. [Parties] are often interested in settling (particularly in view of the rising cost of litigation), but 

may consider raising the subject an admission of weakness. A judge’s questions offer a graceful opening.”).

13 LRCiv 7.2(j); see also, Don v. Omni Hotel Management, 16-CV-599, at fn 2 (April 28, 2017) (“Years of 

experience has taught that the physical presence, rather than the availability by telephone, of those individuals 

with the authority to settle [disputes] substantially increases the likelihood of settlement and leads to more 

meaningful negotiations.”) (quoting Mobley v. Rochester, No. 14-CV-2052 (May 18, 2016)).

Case 4:17-cv-00587-FRZ Document 8 Filed 12/12/17 Page 3 of 4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion (Doc. 7) is DENIED because it 

fails to comply with the Rules of this Court, see supra, at pg. 3, #7 & n. 10; and is 

therefore STRICKEN from the record.

Dated this 12th day of December, 2017.

Case 4:17-cv-00587-FRZ Document 8 Filed 12/12/17 Page 4 of 4