Free Order on Motion for Hearing - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 The court has before it defendants CMS, Lopez, Carrasco, and Cornwell's motion for 16 reconsideration (doc. 97) and a joint request for a status conference (doc. 92). 17 The defendants' motion for reconsideration still fails to show good cause to affect the 18 dispositive motion cutoff date in this case. Nevertheless, because the request is so modest 19 (one week), the extension would do no violence to the remainder of our Rule 16 scheduling 20 order. Dispositive motion cutoff dates serve the important purpose of allowing the court to 21 decide such motions before the parties must intensely prepare for their firm trial date. Any 22 delay increases the likelihood that the motion will not be decided before the trial. Because 23 the defendants are prepared to accept that risk, and because the request is so modest, the 24 motion for reconsideration is GRANTED (doc. 97) and the motion for summary judgment 25 filed on October 31, 2005 shall be deemed timely. 26 The parties' joint request for a status conference does not give a hint at what the 27 conference would be about. Accordingly, the joint request for a status conference is 28
Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM Document 111 Filed 11/10/2005 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA I N S U R A N C E) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) C O R R E C T I O N A L M E D I C A L) ) SERVICES, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) NORTHLAND COMPANY, No. CV-04-347-PHX-FJM ORDER

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

DENIED (doc. 92) at this time without prejudice to the right of the parties to request a conference stating the specific reasons for it. DATED this 9th day of November, 2005.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM Document 111 Filed 11/10/2005 Page 2 of 2