Free Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ricky Lee Hancock, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 465 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Meritage Homes Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs, v.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 04-0384-PHX-ROS ORDER

Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. #457) and a variety of procedural motions. (Doc. 431, 432, 443, 461). This Order resolves those motions and makes corrections on the docket. A. Motion to Compel Discovery On November 17, 2006, it was disclosed to Plaintiffs that Greg Hancock, a Defendant, was going to provide expert testimony in relation to counterclaims made by Rick Hancock. Greg Hancock's expert testimony will be based on his knowledge as a real estate broker. Plaintiffs argue that because Greg Hancock is going to testify, he is required by Rule 26 to disclose "the data or other information [that he] considered [] in forming [his] opinions," including the entire file and all correspondence with counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(a)(2)(B); Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County v. LFG, LLC,

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

460 F.3d 697, 716 (6th Cir. 2006) ("[W]e read Rule 26(a)(2) as requiring disclosure of all information provided to testifying experts."). Defendants argue that Greg Hancock is not retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). Further, Greg Hancock does not regularly give expert testimony. Thus, according to Defendants, the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) do not apply to Greg Hancock. Based upon Defendants' representation of Greg Hancock's status as an expert, they are correct that Rule 26(a)(2)(B) does not apply. Greg Hancock represents himself as an expert, and he may be contacted personally regarding his expert witness status. Finally, Defendants argue that the current Rule 16 Scheduling Order does not include dates for the disclosure of expert witnesses regarding the counterclaims. This is incorrect. There is only one Rule 16 Scheduling Order applicable to this case. This order applies to all parties and claims, including the counterclaims. B. Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages The page limits set forth in the Local Rules have been routinely disregarded during this litigation. The parties have repeatedly waited until the date a document is due before seeking leave to exceed the page limits. While it is occasionally necessary for documents to exceed the presumptive limits, it appears the parties are not making sufficient effort to comply with the page limits. These practices will no longer be tolerated. The parties shall comply with the page limits, or seek leave sufficiently far in advance of the relevant deadline to allow the Court to rule on the request prior to the deadline. The parties are cautioned, however, that leave to exceed page limits will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The current requests to exceed page limits do not contain any indication of extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, the requests will be denied and the parties will be directed to file documents within the page limits. Also, Meritage has incorrectly filed numerous documents. Those documents will be stricken and Meritage is warned to exercise more care when filing documents in the future. Accordingly, -2Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 465 Filed 04/04/2007 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

IT IS ORDERED THAT the parties' Joint Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. #457) is DENIED. The Defendants do not have to disclose the information sought by Plaintiffs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motions for Leave to File Excess Pages (Doc. 431, 432, 443, 461) are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED based on the failure to comply with the page limits or other errors, the following documents shall be stricken: Doc. 434, 436, 444, 462. These documents may be refiled no later than April 11, 2007. No time extensions will be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the clerk shall correct the docket text of Doc. 435 to reflect that it is an objection to the statement of facts as opposed to a response to the motion for summary judgment. Also, Doc. 435 should be linked to Doc. 413. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the clerk shall correct the docket text of Doc. 437 to reflect that it is an objection to the statement of facts as opposed to a response to the motion for summary judgment. Also, Doc. 437 should be linked to Doc. 418. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 452) is GRANTED IN PART. Based on the relief requested, Defendants are not seeking a protective order. Rather, they seek an extension of time. Defendants will be given five days after Plaintiffs file their response in which to file their reply.

DATED this 4th day of April, 2007.

-3Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 465 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 3 of 3