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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

American Muslims for Palestine, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Arizona State University, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00670-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Set Briefing Schedule and for Extensions of 

Time (Doc. 22). 

 This case is part of the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot project (“MIDP”) being 

conducted in the District of Arizona under General Order 17-08. Under the MIDP, parties 

must respond to mandatory initial discovery subjects early in the litigation and before 

traditional discovery begins under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. General Order 

17-08, ¶ (A)(2). The parties are to address their compliance with the MIDP in their 

Rule 26(f) report and at the Rule 16 case management conference. Id., ¶ (A)(9). 

 The General Order provides that “[a] party seeking affirmative relief must serve its 

responses to the mandatory initial discovery no later than 30 days after the first pleading 

filed in response to its complaint, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party complaint.” Id., 

¶ (A)(6). It further provides that “[a] party filing a responsive pleading, whether or not it 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 23 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

also seeks affirmative relief, must serve its initial discovery responses no later than 30 

days after it files its responsive pleading.” Id.1

 

 The “pleading” referred to in these provisions is an answer. Pleadings can also 

include counterclaims, crossclaims, and third-party claims, but each of these typically is 

accompanied by an answer. The pleading that triggers discovery obligations under the 

MIDP is the answer. 

 The parties in this case have requested an extension of Defendants’ time to file an 

answer. The parties should be aware that, under the MIDP, the filing of a motion to 

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) does not excuse the obligation to file an answer and the 

corresponding obligation to provide mandatory initial discovery. The General Order 

provides that “[p]arties must file answers, counterclaims, crossclaims, and replies within 

the time set forth in Rule 12(a)(1)-(3) even if they have filed or intend to file a motion to 

dismiss or other preliminary motion.” Id., ¶ (A)(5). Answers may be deferred only for 

good cause based on motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of 

personal jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, or absolute or qualified immunity of a public 

official. Id. Motions to dismiss do not otherwise delay answers or the obligation to 

respond to mandatory initial discovery. 

 The Court concludes that the parties have shown good cause, and will grant a onetime extension of 30 days for Defendants to file an answer. Because the effectiveness of 

the MIDP depends on early disclosures, the Court will not grant additional extensions. 

Thus, the parties’ obligations to produce the information called for in the MIDP within 30 

days of the filing of an answer, as set forth in paragraph (A)(6) of the General Order, will 

be triggered by Defendants filing of an answer after this extension. 

 

1

 The obligation to respond within 30 days does not apply if the parties certify that no discovery will be conducted in the case, and may be extended for 30 days if the parties jointly certify to the Court that they are seeking to settle the case and have a good faith belief that it will be resolved within 30 days. Id. 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 23 Filed 03/27/18 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

 IT IS ORDERED granting the Parties’ Joint Motion to Set Briefing Schedule and 

for Extensions of Time (Doc. 22), and extending Defendants’ time to file an answer in 

response to the Complaint (Doc. 1) as follows: 

1. Defendants shall each have until April 10, 2018, to file a Motion to 

Dismiss and/or an Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1). 

2. Plaintiffs shall have until May 10, 2018, to file Responses to Defendants’ 

Motions to Dismiss. 

3. Defendants shall each have 24 days after service of Plaintiffs’ respective 

Response to file a Reply to Response in support of its motion to dismiss. 

 Dated this 27th day of March, 2018. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cv-00670-JJT Document 23 Filed 03/27/18 Page 3 of 3