Free Uncategorized - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

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) Dawn C. Valdivia (#020715) 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 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES

On September 19, 2005, Defendant filed a Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines in this case. This Court granted Defendant's request on September 21, 2005, before Plaintiff had an opportunity to object. The Court's action may have been based upon the mistaken belief that the "parties" sought the extension, since the Order states the motion was the "parties' Motion." The Motion was not brought by the parties, but was brought solely by the Defendant. Indeed, the Plaintiff vehemently opposes and hereby responds to Defendant's Motion, and, therefore, asks this Court to reconsider its ruling granting the Motion. Schwab contends that an extension of the Case Management Deadlines is necessary because Ms. Johnson has provided incomplete responses to written discovery and delayed participation in the meet and confer process and it is concerned that it will not be able to obtain the information necessary to submit witness disclosures by the scheduled deadline. This contention is absurd. First, Ms. Johnson's responses are not incomplete and are in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Exhibits B and C to Defendant's Motion. Next,

Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC

Document 40

Filed 09/23/2005

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 25 26 27 28

Ms. Johnson has not delayed participation in the meet and confer process. On August 3, 2005, Ms. Johnson timely served her responses to Defendant's discovery requests. Id. On August 17, 2005, Defendant sent Ms. Johnson's counsel a detailed six-page letter regarding Ms. Johnson's responses. See Exhibit D to Defendant's Motion. On September 2, 2005, Defendant's counsel, Christopher Mason, called Ms. Johnson's counsel, Dawn Valdivia, regarding settlement and discovery issues in this matter. See Declaration of Dawn C. Valdivia attached as Exhibit 1. Ms. Valdivia informed Mr. Mason that she was in the process of responding to Defendant's letter, but, for reasons that are covered by attorney-client and work product privileges, she subsequently sent him a letter agreeing to meet and confer. See Exhibit 1. In that letter, Ms. Valdivia suggested that Defendant's office call Mr. Williams, Ms. Johnson's lead counsel, to set up a time. See Exhibit D. There is nothing suspicious or dilatory about Ms. Valdivia's suggestion. While it is true that Defendant's counsel called Ms. Valdivia's secretary to schedule a meet and confer, neither Mr. Williams nor Ms. Valdivia were available to meet on the dates proposed by Defendant. See Exhibit 1. On September 19, 2005, the same day that Defendant filed the instant Motion, the parties scheduled a meet and confer for September 28, 2005. Id. Accordingly, Ms. Johnson and her attorneys have not engaged in any delay tactics or any other conduct that would serve to slow the discovery process. Defendant's issues with Plaintiff's discovery responses are largely due to the unreasonableness of Defendant's requests and not with Plaintiff's responses. See Exhibits B and C. In fact, Defendant has propounded another set of requests on Plaintiff, including a question that asks Plaintiff to identify the name of each course taken at any educational institution since high school including the grades received she received in each course. See Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's Second Set of Non-Uniform Interrogatories attached as Exhibit 2. Regardless of the dispute over discovery requests and responses, Defendant has failed to indicate why Ms. Johnson's responses delay the process of identifying witnesses,

Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC

Document 40

-2Filed 09/23/2005

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

especially given the large amount of discovery and testimony that was exchanged before the NLRB. Indeed, Defendant previously argued that Plaintiff's claim before the NLRB was identical to the claim before this Court that it warranted collateral estoppel effect. In making that argument, Defendant provided this Court with volumes of evidence and testimony that was propounded before the NLRB. How can Defendant now say it needs more time to conduct discovery? Given the that the parties are meeting next week to discuss this issue, Plaintiff sees no reason to continue to delay this case especially given the large amount of documents and testimony that have already been exchanged. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny Defendant's Motion to Extend Case Deadlines and reinstitute the June 28, 2005, Order. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 23rd day of September, 2005. QUARLES & BRADY STREICH LANG LLP By s/Dawn C. Valdivia Lonnie J. Williams, Jr. Dawn C. Valdivia Attorneys for Plaintiff Marcela Johnson

I hereby certify that on the 23rd day of September, 2005, 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 Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85016
QBPHX\115537.00002\1959153.1

Case 2:04-cv-00790-EHC

Document 40

-3Filed 09/23/2005

Page 3 of 3