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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

James Rogers, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Maricopa Community College District, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00605-PHX-GMS

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 

 The Court enters the following Case Management Order to govern the litigation in 

this case: 

 1. Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project. This case is subject to the 

Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project (“MIDP”) implemented by General Order 17-

08. The parties must comply with the requirements of the MIDP, and need not make the 

initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a). If responses 

required by the MIDP have not been exchanged, they shall be exchanged by June 22, 

2018. 

 2. Deadline for Joining Parties, Amending Pleadings, and Filing Supplemental 

Pleadings. The deadline for joining parties, amending pleadings, and filing supplemental 

pleadings is 60 days from the date of this Order. 

 3. Discovery Limitations. Depositions shall be limited to seven hours each as 

provided in Rule 30(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Each side may 

propound up to 25 interrogatories, including subparts, 25 requests for production of 

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 29 Filed 06/15/18 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

documents, including subparts, and 25 requests for admissions, including subparts. 

 4. MIDP Responses and Fact Discovery. The deadline for final 

supplementation of MIDP responses and the completion of fact discovery, including 

discovery by subpoena, shall be May 17, 2019.

1

 To ensure compliance with this 

deadline, the following rules shall apply: 

 a. Written Discovery: All interrogatories, requests for production of 

document, and requests for admissions shall be served at least 45 days before the 

discovery deadline. 

 b. The parties may mutually agree in writing, without Court approval, 

to extend the time provided for discovery responses in Rules 33, 34, and 36 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Such agreed-upon extensions, however, shall not alter or 

extend the discovery deadlines set forth in this Order. 

 5. Expert Disclosures and Discovery. 

 a. Plaintiff(s) shall provide full and complete expert disclosures, as 

required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than 

October 26, 2018. 

 b. Defendant(s) shall provide full and complete expert disclosures, as 

required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than 

February 15, 2019. 

 c. Rebuttal expert disclosures, if any, shall be made no later than 

March 15, 2019. Rebuttal experts shall be limited to responding to opinions stated by 

initial experts. 

 d. Expert depositions shall be completed no later than May 17, 2019. 

 e. Disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2)(A) must include the identities of 

 

1

 General Order 17-08 implements the MIDP and should be reviewed carefully. It requires parties to timely supplement their MIDP responses as new information is discovered. Parties who fail to timely disclose relevant information will be precluded from using it in the case and may be subject to other sanctions. Parties who unreasonably postpone disclosure of relevant information to the end of the discovery period will also be subject to sanctions. 

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 29 Filed 06/15/18 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

27 

28 

treating physicians and other witnesses who will provide testimony under Federal Rules 

of Evidence 702, 703, or 705, but who are not required to provide expert reports under 

Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Rule 26(a)(2)(C) disclosures are required for such witnesses on the 

dates set forth above. Rule 26(a)(2)(C) disclosures must identify not only the subjects on 

which the witness will testify, but must also provide a summary of the facts and opinions 

to which the expert will testify. The summary, although clearly not as detailed as a 

Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report, must be sufficiently detailed to provide fair notice of what the 

expert will say at trial.2

 f. As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 26 (1993 

Amendments), expert reports under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) must set forth “the testimony the 

witness is expected to present during direct examination, together with the reasons 

therefor.” Full and complete disclosures of such testimony are required on the dates set 

forth above; absent extraordinary circumstances, parties will not be permitted to 

supplement expert reports after these dates. The Court notes, however, that it usually 

permits parties to present opinions of their experts that were elicited by opposing counsel 

during depositions of the experts. Counsel should depose experts with this fact in mind. 

 g. Each side shall be limited to one retained or specifically employed 

expert witness per issue. 

 6. Discovery Disputes. 

 a. If a discovery dispute arises, the parties promptly shall call the Court 

to request a telephone conference concerning the dispute. The Court will seek to resolve 

the dispute during the telephone conference, and may enter appropriate orders on the 

basis of the telephone conference. The Court may order written briefing if it does not 

resolve the dispute during the telephone conference. The parties shall not file written 

 

2

 In Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 

2011), the Ninth Circuit held that “a treating physician is only exempt from Rule 26(a)(2)(B)’s written report requirement to the extent that his opinions were formed 

during the course of treatment.” Id. at 826. Thus, for opinions formed outside the course of treatment, Rule 26(a)(2)(B) written reports are required. Id. For opinions formed during the course of treatment, Rule 26(a)(2)(C) disclosures will suffice. 

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 29 Filed 06/15/18 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

discovery motions without leave of Court.3

 b. Parties shall not contact the Court concerning a discovery dispute 

without first seeking to resolve the matter through personal consultation and sincere 

effort as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(j). Any briefing ordered by the 

Court shall also comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(j). 

 c. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not entertain fact 

discovery disputes after the deadline for completion of fact discovery, and will not 

entertain expert discovery disputes after the deadline for completion of expert discovery. 

 7. Dispositive Motions.

 a. Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than June 21, 2019. 

 b. No party shall file more than one motion for summary judgment 

under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without leave of court. 

 c. Statements of fact required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1 

shall not exceed ten pages in length, exclusive of exhibits. 

 d. The parties shall not notice oral argument on any motion. Instead, a 

party desiring oral argument shall place the words “Oral Argument Requested” 

immediately below the title of the motion pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 

7.2(f). The Court will issue an order scheduling oral argument as it deems appropriate. 

 8. Good Faith Settlement Talks. All parties and their counsel shall meet in 

person and engage in good faith settlement talks no later than May 17, 2019. Upon 

completion of such settlement talks, and in no event later than five working days after the 

deadline set forth in the preceding sentence, the parties shall file with the Court a joint 

report on settlement talks executed by or on behalf of all counsel. The report shall inform 

the Court that good faith settlement talks have been held and shall report on the outcome 

of such talks. The parties shall indicate whether assistance from the Court is needed in 

seeking settlement of the case. The parties shall promptly notify the Court at any time 

 

3

 The prohibition on “written discovery motions” includes any written materials delivered or faxed to the Court, including hand-delivered correspondence with attachments. 

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 29 Filed 06/15/18 Page 4 of 5
- 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 

when settlement is reached during the course of this litigation. 

 9. The Deadlines Are Real. The parties are advised that the Court intends to 

enforce the deadlines set forth in this Order, and should plan their litigation activities 

accordingly. The parties are specifically informed that the Court will not, absent truly 

unusual circumstances, extend the schedule in this case to accommodate settlement talks. 

 10. Briefing Requirements. 

 a. All memoranda filed with the Court shall comply with Local Rule of 

Civil Procedure 7.1(b) requiring 13 point font in text and footnotes. 

 b. Citations in support of any assertion in the text shall be included in 

the text, not in footnotes. 

 11. Pre-motion Conference. 

 The Court will hold a conference with the parties before motions for summary 

judgment are filed. The purpose of the conference will be to narrow issues and focus the 

briefing, and perhaps dispense with statements of fact under Local Rule 56.1. The parties 

shall exchange two-page letters describing any anticipated motions for summary 

judgment and responses, identifying the issues and claims on which summary judgment 

will be sought and the basis for the motions and response. The parties shall file these 

letters with the Court on or before May 17, 2019, and shall call the Court the same day to 

schedule a time for a pre-motion conference. 

 Dated this 15th day of June, 2018. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 29 Filed 06/15/18 Page 5 of 5