Free Stipulation - 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
1 Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 424-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Meritage Homes Corporation, a Maryland Corporation, formerly d/b/a Meritage Corporation, Hancock-MTH Builders, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Hancock-MTH Communities, Inc., an Arizona corporation, and currently d/b/a Meritage Homes Construction, Inc., an Arizona corporation, and Meritage Homes of Arizona, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Ricky Lee Hancock and Brenda Hancock, husband and wife; Gregory S. Hancock and Linda Hancock, husband and wife, Rick Hancock Homes L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company; RLH Development, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company; and J2H2, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company, Defendants. _________________________________________ Rick and Brenda Hancock, Defendants, Counterclaimants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v.

CASE NO. CV-04-0384-PHX-ROS AMENDED PROPOSED JOINT RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER

(Assigned to the Hon. Roslyn O. Silver)

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

Meritage Homes Corporation, a Maryland Corporation, formerly d/b/a Meritage Corporation, Hancock-MTH Builders, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Hancock-MTH Communities, Inc., an Arizona corporation, and currently d/b/a Meritage Homes Construction, Inc., an Arizona corporation, and Meritage Homes of Arizona, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Steven J. Hilton and Suzanne Hilton, husband and wife; John R. Landon and Debi Landon, husband and wife; Scott Keeffe and Vicky Keeffe, husband and wife; Roger Zetah and Jane Doe Zetah, husband and wife; and James Arneson and Zane Arneson, husband and wife, Third-Party Defendants.

Pursuant to the terms of the Case Management Plan and the representations made by the parties at the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, all parties shall comply with the deadlines established in this Order. A. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as amended and made effective December

1, 2002 by the Supreme Court of the United States shall apply to all proceedings concerning this case. B. C. The parties shall supplement the Initial Disclosures as defined in FRCP 26(a)(1). The Plaintiff(s) shall supplement their list of witnesses no later than March 31,

2006. The Defendant(s) shall supplement their list of witnesses no later than May 1, 2006. Additional witness pertaining to Rick and Brenda Hancock's Amended Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint shall be disclosed by October 10, 2006. D. Procedural motions including Motions to Amend the Complaint or Answer and

Motions to Join Additional Parties or Counterclaims shall be filed no later than March 2, 2006 with leave of the Court. All Motions to Amend shall attach a copy of the proposed complaint or answer.

2 Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 424-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 2 of 6

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

E.

The Plaintiff(s) shall disclose the identity of all persons who may be used at trial

to present evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 701, 702, 703, 704, and 705 no later than February 28, 2006. The Defendant(s) shall disclose the identity of all persons who may be used at trial to present evidence under FRE 701, 702, 703, 704, or 705 no later than March 15, 2006. No deposition of any expert witness shall occur before the disclosures concerning expert witnesses mandated by this Order have been made. The disclosure of the identities of all persons who may be used at trial to present evidence under FRE 701, 702, 703, 704, or 705 shall also include all of the disclosures required by FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) if the witness is either (1) retained or specifically employed to provide expert testimony in the case, or (2) is an agent or employee of the party offering the testimony whose duties regularly involve giving expert testimony.1 F. All discovery, including answers to interrogatories, production of documents,

depositions and requests to admit shall be completed by October 31, 2006. G. The parties shall finally supplement all discovery, including material changes in

expert witness opinions and material disclosures, pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(3), all exhibits to be used and all witnesses to be called at trial, on or before November 13, 2006.2 H. Discovery by interrogatory shall be governed by the national uniform

requirements set forth in FRCP 33. I. Depositions shall be limited by the national uniform requirements set forth in

Rules 30, 31, and 32 of the FRCP.

The parties are on notice that this Order requires disclosure different than that required by FRCP 26(a)(2). 2 The parties are on notice that this order supercedes the "30 days before trial" disclosure deadline contained in FRCP 26(a)(3). Therefore, failure to timely supplement pursuant to Rule 26(e), including attempts to include witnesses and exhibits in the Proposed Final Pretrial Order or at trial that were not previously disclosed in a timely manner may result in the exclusion of such evidence at trial or the imposition of other sanctions including dismissal and the imposition of default pursuant to FRCP 37, the Local Rules of the District Court, and the inherent power of the Court.

1

3 Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 424-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 3 of 6

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

J.

Motions on discovery matters are strongly discouraged. Parties are directed to

Local Rule 7.2(j), which prohibits filing discovery motions unless parties have first met to resolve any discovery difficulties. If the parties cannot reach a resolution, they are directed to jointly arrange with the Court a conference call to resolve the matter orally in court in lieu of filing a formal motion. Once the call is made, the Court will provide further directions concerning preparations for the phone call. K. This Order contemplates that each party will conduct discovery to permit

completion within the deadline. Any discovery which results in insufficient time to undertake necessary additional discovery and which requires an extension of the discovery deadline will be met with disfavor, will only be granted for good cause or only to prevent manifest injustice pursuant to FRCP 16(b) and (e), and may result in denial of an extension, exclusion of evidence, or the imposition of other serious sanctions pursuant to FRCP 37(b), (c), (d). L. All dispositive motions shall be filed no later than December 20, 2006. Each

party may only file one summary judgment motion not to exceed 17 pages. M. All parties are specifically admonished that pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(i), "[i]f a

motion does not conform in all substantial respects with the requirements of this Rule, or if the opposing party does not serve and file the required answering memoranda, or if counsel for any party fails to appear at the time and place for oral argument, such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." N. The parties shall keep the Court apprised of settlement negotiations and the

progress of discovery. A joint letter to the court concerning the status of settlement discussions (containing no specific settlement terms or offers) and the progress of discovery shall be submitted by March 1, 2006, and labeled `FIRST NOTICE OF DISCOVERY AND SETTLEMENT,' and then every FOUR (4) months thereafter. If settlement is reached the parties shall file a Notice of Settlement with the Clerk of the Court with a copy to Judge Silver's Chambers.

4 Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 424-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 4 of 6

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

O.

A Joint Proposed Pretrial Order and all Motions in Limine shall be lodged and

filed by April 5, 2007. If dispositive motions have been filed, the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order and Motions in Limine shall be due either on the above date or 30 days following resolution of the Motions, whichever is later. The content of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order shall include, but not be limited to, that prescribed in the Form of Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. Statements made shall not be in the form of a question, but should be a concise narrative statement of each party's contention regarding each uncontested and contested issue. Responses to Motions in Limine are due 15 days after the Motions are filed, and no Replies are permitted unless specifically ordered by the Court. P. If the case will be tried to the court, rather than to a jury, in addition to filing a

Joint Proposed Pretrial Order, each party shall also submit Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the same date the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order is due. Q. The attorneys who will be trying the case for all the parties shall appear at the at ______,

Final Pretrial Conference, that should be scheduled for on

p.m. and the attorneys appearing at the conference shall be prepared to address the merits of all issues raised in the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order and fully briefed Motions in Limine. Unless one has already been established the Court will establish a firm trial date at the Pretrial Conference, and will issue the Final Pretrial Order with any additional instructions for trial preparation. R. Any other final pretrial matter required pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(3) are due in

accordance with this Order prior to the preparation and submission of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. S. The parties shall submit their proposed voir dire questionnaire and questions,

statement of the case, jury instructions, and form of verdict on a 1.44K high density IBM-PC compatible computer disk in WordPerfect 9.0 format in addition to other written materials filed with the Clerk of the Court.

5 Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 424-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 5 of 6

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

T.

An Interim Rule 16 Status Hearing is scheduled for ______________ at _____

a.m. Seven (7) days prior to the Interim Hearing counsel are to prepare and file a Joint Status Report. U. This Order shall not apply to Third Party Defendant Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P. and

Larry Seay. Mr. Seay and Snell & Wilmer have been dismissed from this case. The Court views compliance with the provisions of this Order as critical to its case management responsibilities and the responsibilities of the parties under FRCP 1.

DATED

, 2007.

6 Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 424-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 6 of 6