Free Order on Motion to Continue - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 The court has before it defendants' motion to continue trial (doc. 74). Plaintiff does 18 not oppose the motion. Counsel for the defendants states that he has a prepaid family 19 vacation that conflicts with the trial. He also states that he just produced documents in 20 response to a discovery request that caused plaintiff to file a motion to amend the complaint. 21 Finally, he states that he has a trial in the superior court beginning on November 7, 2005. 22 None of these reasons constitute good cause to upset a firm trial date. Our Rule 16 23 scheduling order, entered on July 20, 2004, over one year ago, set this case for a firm trial 24 date and specifically advised the parties that "NO EXTENSIONS TO THE DISPOSITIVE 25 MOTION CUTOFF DATE, THE PRETRIAL ORDER DATE, THE PRETRIAL 26 CONFERENCE DATE, AND THE FIRM TRIAL DATE WILL BE GRANTED DUE TO 27 CASE PROCESSING PROBLEMS, DISCOVERY DISPUTES OR SETTLEMENT 28
Case 2:03-cv-02516-FJM Document 76 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

HERITAGE HOUSE '76, an Arizona) ) corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) LIFE CYCLE BOOKS LTD., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

No. 03-2516-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

NEGOTIATIONS." Order of July 20, 2004 at 1 (doc. 14). We do not understand how defense counsel would prepay for a family vacation in conflict with a firm trial date that was set over a year ago. Nor does the tardy disclosure of documents pursuant to a discovery request constitute good cause. Finally, this case will go to trial on October 12, 2005 with an estimated length of five days. Thus, counsel's reference to a trial in the superior court beginning November 7, 2005 in no way conflicts with this case. Nor does this come as any surprise to counsel. Our order of December 15, 2004 (doc. 35) expressly rejected the parties' stipulation to amend the Rule 16 scheduling order. And, in our order of January 26, 2005 (doc. 45), we expressly affirmed all of the dates in the Rule 16 scheduling order. For all these reasons, the defendants' motion to continue the trial is DENIED (doc. 74). DATED this 1st day of September, 2005.

-2Case 2:03-cv-02516-FJM Document 76 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 2 of 2