Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Q
STEVE SCHRUM, . ) é
Plaintiff. ) g
} Court No. O4 CV 619 E
v. ) §
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE ) §
RAILWAY COMPANY, ) I §
Defendant. ) g
_ PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY g
COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR Q
ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE §
RAILWAY COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT §
NOW COMES Plaintiff, STEVE SCHRUM, by and through his §
attorneys, GEORGE T. BRUGESS and HOEY & FARINA, P.C. and for his E
reply to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company’s (BNSF) i
` response to Plaintiff’s request for additional time to respond g
to BNSF’s motion for summary judgment states as follows: U H __-__§
-h·_i BNSF claims that BNSF never suggested.Plaintiff`should not i
depose witnesses and BNSF denies it misled Plaintiff into not g
conducting depositions (Plaintiff requested an extension of time g
to depose two physicians, Dr. Lindsay, a treating doctor of Mr. E
Schrum, and Dr. Khouri, BNSF’s former medical director.} Yet, in §
the “status report concerning settlement" drafted, signed and g
filed by the BNSF, BNSF represented to the court “the parties ri
have none the less committed to participating in private E
mediation and are finalizing the details for mediation” (filed g
Case 2:04-cv—OO619-RCB Document 91 Filed O3/10/2006 Page 1 of 3

September 19, 2005.) Also, in the Joint Motion to Extend E
Discovery Cutoff again drafted, signed and filed by the BNSF, E
BNSF said “the parties have agreed to private mediationm . They E
U agree that postponing certain discovery until after the g
mediation will preserve resources that might be better used to g
facilitate a settlement of this lawsuit" (filed November 30, g
zu05.> E
The two doctor depositions of Lindsay and Khuri cost over g
$2,000. When the BNSF agreed to extend discovery “to preserve g
resources” pending mediation, Plaintiff’s counsel understood E
U that to mean saving" money' for these doctors’ depositions and i
based upon a fair reading of the record that is the only logical i
conclusion to be drawn. g
Respectfully submitted, H H _ E
;::EEE;...__ E
‘ L E
‘ George T. Brugess 5
Attorney for Plaintiff _Q
George T. Brugess E
HOEY & FARTNA, P.C. §
542 South Dearborn Street §
Suite 200 Q
Chicago, Illinois 60605 Q
312/939-1212 §
-2- . g
Case 2:04-cv-00619-RCB Document 91 Fnled O3/10/2006 Page 2 of 3 sssss

I PROOF OF SERVICE
Manuela D. Popescu a non—attorney, certifies that she §
served a copy of the foregoing. document upon the attorneys §
listed below via the court’s e—filing system and by placing a §
copy thereof in the United States Mail box located at 542 S. g
Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois addressed as below, with proper §
` postage affixed at or before 5:00 on March 10, 2006. §
Sal J. Rivera . §
Melissa W. Rawlinson §
William L. Thorpe §
FENNEMORE CRAIG §
3003 North Central Avenue i
— suite 2600 i
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2913 §
‘ . ..N - -Char1es D. Onofry §
3101 North Central Avenue Q
0 suite 000 §
Phoenix, Arizona 85012 i
George T. Brugess §
sozr 0 FARINA, 2.0. §
542 South Dearborn Street §
suite 200 §
Chicago, Illinois 60605 E
312/939-1212 Q
Case 2:04-cv-00619-RCB Document 91 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00619-RCB

Document 91

Filed 03/10/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00619-RCB

Document 91

Filed 03/10/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00619-RCB

Document 91

Filed 03/10/2006

Page 3 of 3