Free Uncategorized - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP
Firm State Bar No. 00443100 Renaissance One Two North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391
TELEPHONE 602.229.5200

Lonnie J. Williams, Jr. (#005966) ([email protected]) Dawn C. Valdivia (#020715) ([email protected]) Attorneys for Plaintiff Marcela Johnson IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Marcela Johnson, Plaintiff, v. Charles Schwab Corporation, Defendant. NO. CV 04-0790 PHX-JWS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S EXPEDITED MOTION TO EXTEND CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES

For the fourth time in this litigation, Defendant Charles Schwab seeks to delay this As set forth in Plaintiff Marcela Johnson's Motion for Comprehensive Pretrial

15 case.

16 Conference, this case has been ongoing for almost two years and not one deposition has 17 been taken and no trial date has been set. The parties have been unable to agree on any 18 issues and in the last few months, have exchanged almost fifty letters regarding discovery 19 disputes. [Docket No. 69] 20 Contrary to Schwab's assertions, Plaintiff's counsel never agreed to an extension of

21 the case management deadlines, but did unsuccessfully attempt to reach an agreement 22 regarding some of the deadlines, including the lay witness list deadline. Schwab's counsel 23 indicated that they needed additional time to file the lay witness list because they had not 24 yet taken Plaintiff's deposition. Instead of agreeing to extend all the deadlines and further 25 delay this case, Plaintiff's counsel proposed an extension of time to supplement the lay 26 witness list with individuals that may be newly discovered during Plaintiff's deposition. 27 Schwab has listed 35 witnesses and contends that even more witnesses may be discovered 28 after the motion to compel is ruled upon. Although Plaintiff does not believe that additional
Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC Document 85 Filed 01/03/2006 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

witnesses will be disclosed, or even exist, she agrees that the parties should be able to supplement their witness lists to include any individuals that are discovered for the first time during Plaintiff's deposition or in any supplemental discovery responses that are a result of this Court's ruling on Defendant's Motion to Compel.1 Schwab's request for an extension of all case management deadlines is overbroad and by its own admission, the only deadlines it requests to be extended are expert disclosure and lay witnesses. [Motion, pp. 1:24-2:4] There is simply no basis for

extending all the deadlines and further delaying this case. For the reasons stated above and in Plaintiff's Motion for Comprehensive Pretrial Conference, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny Schwab's motion for an extension of all the case management deadlines and to instead set a date for filing a supplemental lay witness list for those witnesses who are discovered for the first time during Plaintiff's deposition or in any supplemental discovery responses that are the result of this Court's ruling on Defendant's Motion to Compel. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 3rd day of January, 2006. QUARLES & BRADY STREICH LANG LLP By s/Dawn C. Valdivia Lonnie J. Williams, Jr. Dawn C. Valdivia Attorneys for Plaintiff Marcela Johnson

1

25 26 27 28

Schwab continues to assert that Plaintiff has not disclosed her damages. This is not true. Plaintiff has disclosed each of her employers, hours, benefits, and earnings since her termination from Schwab. Plaintiff has been able to disclose a comprehensive calculation of her lost earnings because it has not yet received a valuation of benefits from Schwab as requested. Similarly, Plaintiff has not refused to make herself available for a deposition, but simply requested that she be permitted to proceed with the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition that she noticed in September 2005 before Schwab takes her deposition. (Exhibits 3 and 8 to Defendant's Expedited Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines.)
Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC Document 85
-2Filed 01/03/2006

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 27 28

I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of January, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF Systems for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrant: Joseph T. Clees Christopher Mason Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 2415 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85016 s/Lisa Young
QBPHX\1980199.1

Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC

Document 85

-3Filed 01/03/2006

Page 3 of 3