Free Order - 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Phelps Dodge Corporation, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________)

Richard G. Krauth, et al.,

No. CV 04-0544-PHX-PGR ORDER

Pending before the Court is the parties' Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule for Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 59). The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Enforcing Settlement Agreement (Doc. 37) was filed with the Court on January 23, 2006. The Plaintiffs requested expedited fact discovery on the subject of settlement prior to the Plaintiffs filing an opposition to the motion. The Defendants agreed. The parties have yet to finalize a schedule for such discovery. Instead, the parties ask that they be allowed to notify the Court when the Defendants' motion is fully briefed so that the Court may set a date for oral argument. According to the Court's Scheduling Order (Doc. 41) governing this case, the completion of fact discovery for the narrow issue of whether the parties reached an enforceable settlement agreement is March 31, 2006. Furthermore, dispositive motions are not due on this issue until May 1, 2006. Regardless, the Defendants filed their dispositive motion at the end of January prior to the completion of such fact discovery. Although the
Case 2:04-cv-00544-PGR Document 60 Filed 02/28/2006 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 25 26 27 28

parties now seek an open-ended extension of the summary judgment motion's briefing schedule, the Court's policy is to never grant such requests. Despite the fact that the motion for an extension is entirely inconsistent with the Court's Scheduling Order, the Plaintiffs will have until March 31, 2006 to file their response in opposition to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties were advised in this Court's Scheduling Order that this Court does not entertain stipulations or agreements to extend deadlines, and that any such requests must be brought by formal motion before the Court. The parties are reminded that this case is governed by the dates set forth in this Court's Scheduling Order, or subsequent orders, not private agreements between the parties. If the parties believe that good cause exists for the extension of any deadline(s) remaining in this action, they must brief the issue to the Court, including explanations as to why they are unable to comply with the deadline(s) imposed by this Court, and whether the proposed change(s) will affect any other deadlines in the Court's Scheduling Order, including deadlines imposed on other parties. IT IS ORDERED that the parties' Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule for Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Plaintiffs are to submit their response in opposition to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on or before March 31, 2006. The Defendants will have the customary fifteen (15) days after the service of the responsive memorandum to file a reply memorandum. DATED this 28th day of February, 2006.

- 2 Case 2:04-cv-00544-PGR Document 60 Filed 02/28/2006 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 - 3 Case 2:04-cv-00544-PGR Document 60 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 3 of 3