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

SRM

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 Charles McManus, Plaintiff -vsCarl B. Dodge, et al., Defendant(s) CV-03-2327-PHX-MHM (JI) ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MOTION TO EXTEND Under consideration is Defendants' Motion to Enlarge Deadlines, filed October 5, 2005 (#52). Defendants seek to extend the August 12, 2005 discovery request deadline, the July 13, 2005 to depose Plaintiff, and the October 11, 2005 dispositive motion deadline, citing delays in completing the discovery planning meeting and resulting delays in the commencement of discovery. After difficulties in conferring with Defendant on a proposed Joint Discovery Plan, the Defendants filed their own version, which was stricken on July 13, 2005. (Order #46.) The parties subsequently conferred and filed their joint plan on September 12, 2005 (#50). Plaintiff has responded (#55), arguing that the original deadline has long been known, and thus any obstacle should have been avoidable. Plaintiff confuses the standards of good cause and excusable neglect. Rule 16 governs modifications to the Court's schedule, and Rule 16(b) permits modifications upon a showing of good cause. Defendants have shown good cause. Many of the deadlines had expired prior to the time that discovery was permissible. Plaintiff asserts no valid prejudice resulting from modifications to the schedule. Accordingly, appropriate modifications will be adopted. MOTION TO STRIKE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike on October 20, 2005 (#56), seeking to strike Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that it was not timely filed.
Document 57 1 - Filed 10/25/2005 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

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

Defendants filed their motion on October 12, 2005 (#53). In light of the Court's amendment of the Schedule, Defendants' motion was timely. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion will be denied. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Plaintiff coupled with his Motion to Strike a Motion to Extend the time o respond to the motion for summary judgment, seeking an adequate time to respond. In light of the briefing schedule adopted herein, this motion is moot, and will be denied. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (#). The consideration of such motion will proceed as ordered herein. NOTICE - WARNING TO PLAINTIFF This Notice is Required to Be Given to Plaintiff 1 Defendants' motion for summary judgment seeks to have your case dismissed. Their Motion will, if granted, end your case. Rule 56 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. In particular, Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says: (c) Motion and Proceedings Thereon. The motion shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing. The adverse party prior to the day of hearing may serve opposing affidavits. The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages. Generally, that means that summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact -- that is there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a
1

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).

Document 57 2 - Filed 10/25/2005 -

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

matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant's declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P., subsection (e), provides in part as follows: When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this Rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Plaintiff's attention is further directed to the provisions of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Arizona. Subparagraph (e) of Local Civil Rule 7.2 provides: Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, a motion including its supporting memorandum, and the response including its supporting memorandum, each shall not exceed seventeen (17) pages, exclusive of attachments and any required statement of facts. Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, a reply including its supporting memorandum shall not exceed eleven (11) pages, exclusive of attachments. Subparagraph (a) of Local Civil Rule 56.1 provides: Any party filing a motion for summary judgment shall set forth separately from the memorandum of law, and in full, the specific facts on which that party relies in support of the motion. The specific facts shall be set forth in serial fashion and not in narrative form. As to each fact, the statement shall refer to a specific portion of the record where the fact may be found (i.e., affidavit, deposition, etc.). Any party opposing a motion for summary judgment must comply with the foregoing in setting forth the specific facts, which the opposing party asserts, including those facts which establish a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment in favor of the moving party. In the alternative, the movant and the party opposing the motion shall jointly file a stipulation signed by the parties setting forth a statement of the stipulated facts if the parties agree there is no genuine
Document 57 3 - Filed 10/25/2005 Page 3 of 6

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

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

issue of any material fact. As to any stipulated facts, the parties so stipulating may state that their stipulations are entered into only for the purposes of the motion for summary judgment and are not intended to be otherwise binding. Length Limitations - Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, including his Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment may not exceed seventeen (17) pages in length, without the prior approval of the court. Attachments in support of his responsive memorandum are not included in the seventeen page limit; nor is the required Statement of Facts. Statement of Facts Requirements - The Statement of Facts must set forth the specific facts upon which Plaintiff relies in support of his position opposing Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The facts must be set forth in regular succession, preferably numbered individually, and each must be accompanied by a reference to where each fact may be located (i.e., in an affidavit, deposition transcript, answers to interrogatories, admissions, etc.). Documentary Evidence Required - Plaintiff is warned that each fact must be supported by documentary evidence. It is not enough for Plaintiff to merely allege that a certain fact exists. This allegation must be supported by an affidavit, deposition transcript, answer to interrogatory under oath, or similar sworn evidence. Failure to Comply - Finally, Plaintiff's attention is directed to Subparagraph (i) of Local Civil Rule 7.2, which provides: If a motion does not conform in all substantial respects with the requirements of this Local Rule, or if the opposing party does not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the court may dispose of the motion summarily. In other words, if Plaintiff doesn't substantially comply with each of the above listed requirements, the court may deem that he has consented to entry of judgment in Defendants' favor and may enter judgment against Plaintiff without a trial. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Enlarge Deadlines, filed October 5, 2005 (#52) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following deadline shall apply:
Document 57 4 - Filed 10/25/2005 Page 4 of 6

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

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.

Discovery Requests: All discovery request shall be served on or before November 11, 2005.

2.

Plaintiff's Deposition: Any deposition of Plaintiff shall be conducted on or before November 25, 2005.

3.

Discovery Motions: Any discovery or disclosure motions shall be filed on or before December 23, 2005.

4.

Dispositive Motions: Any dispositive motions shall be filed on or before January 13, 2006.

5.

Pre-Trial Motions and Order: All pretrial motions, other than motions in limine, and the parties' proposed joint pretrial order shall be filed/lodged by February 27, 2006.

In all other respects, the Court's scheduling Order filed March 24, 2005 (#28) shall remain in effect. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, filed October 20, 2005 (#56) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Extend, filed October 20, 2005 (#56) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 1. Response - Plaintiff shall have until December 23, 2005 within which to file a response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 12, 2005 (#53), together with a separate Statement of Facts in support of his response, supporting affidavits and other appropriate exhibits. 2. Reply - Defendants shall have 15 days following service of the response in which to file a reply. 3. Decision - The motion shall be deemed to be ready for decision without oral argument on the day following the date set for filing the reply unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 4. Joint Proposed Pre-Trial Order - In the event that this motion for summary judgment remains pending within thirty days of any deadline set for filing of a jointly proposed
Document 57 5 - Filed 10/25/2005 Page 5 of 6

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

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

pre-trial order, then such deadline shall be extended to a date thirty (30) days following the entry of an order disposing of this motion for summary judgment.

DATED: October 24, 2005
S:\Drafts\OutBox\03-2327-47o Order 05 10 21 re MExtend MExtend MStrike.wpd

_____________________________________ JAY R. IRWIN United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

Document 57 6 - Filed 10/25/2005 -

Page 6 of 6