Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 The court has before it the defendants' motion to continue the discovery and 14 dispositive motion deadlines (doc. 27), plaintiff's response, and defendants' reply. The court 15 also has before it a document entitled "extraordinary response" which is not contemplated 16 by our rules. Accordingly, on the court's own motion, IT IS ORDERED striking the 17 document entitled "extraordinary response" filed on July 19, 2005. The court also has before 18 it plaintiff's motion to reconsider order denying motion to compel (doc. 29). 19 The defendant asks for an extension of the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines 20 because of settlement negotiations. But this court's Rule 16 scheduling order (doc. 17), 21 advised the parties that the deadlines would be strictly enforced and not extended due to 22 settlement negotiations. While the court is pleased that the parties will participate in a 23 settlement conference before a magistrate judge, neither that conference nor settlement 24 negotiations are good cause to upset a properly entered Rule 16 scheduling order. 25 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING the defendants' motion to continue the discovery 26 and dispositive motion deadlines (doc. 27). 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00326-FJM Document 34 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) FRESERIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH) ) AMERICA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) BEN O'BANNON, No. CV-04-326-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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING the plaintiff's motion to reconsider order denying motion to compel (doc. 29). DATED this 25th day of July, 2005.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00326-FJM Document 34 Filed 07/26/2005 Page 2 of 2