Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 Joseph A. Kendhammer, SBN 009156
2 Jeanne E. Vamer Powell, SBN 017535
KENDHAMMER & COLBURN, L.L.P.
3 394 North Third Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
4 Telephone: (602) 340-9900
5 Facsimile: (602) 340.-9072
Attorneys for Defendant Mesa General Hospital Medical Center, L.P.
6
7 Thomas J. Kennedy, SBN 006907
Rachel M. Bacalzo, SBN 016117
8 SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C.
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
9 Phoenix, Arizona 85004—2003
10 Telephone: (602) 636-2000
Facsimile: (602) 636-2099
1 1 Attorneys for Defendant Bashas’, Inc.
12
13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
14
I5 Wyvonna M. Barnett, )
) Case N0. CV032566 PHX ROS
16 Plaintiff, )
17 ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
vs. ) TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
18 ) DEADLINE PENDING SUMMARY
19 Bashas, Inc., etal., ) JUDGMENT RULINGS
)
2Q Defendants. )
21
22 Defendants Mesa General Hospital Medical Center L.P. ["Mesa General"] and
23 Bashas’, Inc. ("Bashas"’), collectively the "Defendants", through counsel undersigned,
24 hereby request that this Court grant their motion to extend the discovery cutoff in this
case. Plaintiff has not presented this Court with any meritorious arguments against
25
26 extending the discovery deadline and certainly has not demonstrated that any prejudice
27 will arise as a result of an extension.
28
ase 2:O3—cv—O2566-ROS Document 87 Filed O9/22/2005 Page 1 of 3

1 As Defendants stated in their Motion, dispositive motions are pending which may
2 well resolve this entire case. Limited discovery has occurred pending resolution of the
3 motions. In the event the motions are denied, the parties will require this Court’s
4 intervention in order for discovery to proceed because Plaintiff has continually refused
5 to answer discovery requests or sign medical releases. Similarly, she has not cooperated
6 in scheduling depositions and likely will not do so without this Court’s intervention
7 because, as her pleadings make clear, she does not understand what the term
8 "deposition" means.
9 Plaintiff really offers only two objections to Defendants’ Motion. First, she
10 claims that Defendants have had plenty of time to get their witness depositions filed.
11 This simply underscores the fact that she does not understand the discovery process or
12 the meaning of the term "deposition." Plaintiff fails to understand that Defendants
13 cannot contact her treating physicians without her written consent and therefore cannot
14 schedule depositions of any of the providers without her cooperation. Thus far, she has
15 not even facilitated the exchange of relevant medical records, let alone the depositions of
16 her doctors. She fails to address the fact that Defendant Mesa General has been unable
17 to obtain records from any other provider due to Plaintiffs failure to sign medical
18 releases sent to her by counsel undersigned. Moreover, she utterly fails to appreciate
19 that a "deposition" is a question and answer session with a witness, a court reporter, and
20 all parties or counsel present. She continues to assert that Defendants have had plenty of
21 time to get their depositions "in", apparently because she believes a deposition is simply
22 a summary of anticipated testimony prepared by a party. Ms. Barnett has already filed
23 such a document with this Court, and she calls it her "deposition." In the end, Ms.
24 Barnett’s failure to understand the discovery process and her resultant lack of
25 cooperation have stalled any discovery Defendants have initiated. Given the fact that
26 dispositive motions are pending and the fact that Court involvement will be required to
27 proceed with any further discovery, it is appropriate to enter an order extending the
28 discovery deadline.
ase 2:O3—cv—O2566-ROS Document 87 2 Filed O9/22/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 Plaintiff also opposes Defendants’ motion by arguing that the case has been
2 pending for several years and that she is ready to go to trial. Notably, Ms. Barnett
3 asserted that she was ready to go to trial at the Case Management Conference and argued
4 against time for discovery. Again, her total lack of understanding regarding the pre-
5 trial/discovery process deprives her argument of its credibility. In fact, this case has not
6 been set for trial and no prejudice would result from a discovery extension. Moreover,
7 Plaintiff is not in a position to argue against a discovery extension when she is the one
8 who brought the discovery process to a standstill.
9 Wherefore, Defendants urge this Court to extend the discovery deadline to 120
10 days after ruling on the pending dispositive motions.
11 DATED this 2 day of September, 2005.
12 KENDHAMMER & COLBURN, L.L.P. SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C.
13
14
15 Joseph A. Ke mmer' Thomas J. Kenned "
16 Jeanne E. Va » = Powel Rachel M. Bacal •
Attorneys for I efendant Mesa General Attorneys for Ba ' Inc.
17 Hospital Medical Center, L.P.
18 I hereby certify that on this Z2.’%ay of September, 2005, I electronically
19 transmitted the foregoing to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing.
20 COPIES mailed to:
21 Wyvonna M. Barnett
22 506 East McKamey
Payson, Arizona 85541
23 Plaintiff Pro Per
24 Honorable Roslyn O. Silver
25 United States District Court
Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 624
26 401 West Washington Street, SPC 59
27 Phoenix Ar` ona 85003-2158
28 By ` · ¤·L¤-··*
ase 2:O3—cv—O2566-ROS Document 87 3 Filed O9/22/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 87

Filed 09/22/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 87

Filed 09/22/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 87

Filed 09/22/2005

Page 3 of 3