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

1 TERRY GODDARD ATTORNEY GENERAL 2 WANDA E. HOFMANN (014805) 3 Assistant Attorney General 177 North Church Avenue, Suite 1105 4 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1114 (520) 628-6044 · Fax (520) 628-6050 5 [email protected] 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 Defendants Dodge, Dolce, Schriro, Pierce, Rabideau, Britton, Walker, Thelen and v. CARL B. DODGE; T. DOLCE; C. LARSEN; SANDRA WALKER; DORA SCHRIRO; KELLY PIERCE; J. THELEN; J. RABIDEAU; BRITTON, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CHARLES McMANUS, Plaintiff, MOTION TO ENLARGE DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES UNDER RULE 6(b) (SECOND REQUEST TO ENLARGE) No. CV03-2327 PHX-MHM (JI)

17 Larsen request the Court enlarge the deadlines to complete discovery and to file 18 dispositive motions, as set forth in the Court's March 24, 2005 scheduling order 19 (discovery request deadline: August 12, 2005; dispositive motion deadline: October 11, 20 2005). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Due to the particular circumstances delaying these

21 proceedings, the Defendants will require additional time to complete discovery and file 22 their dispositive motion. Under the rules of court, the Defendants were foreclosed from 23 conducting discovery until the parties met to plan for discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). 24 Because the parties did not meet until after the initially-set discovery deadline had 25 expired, the Defendants need additional time. 26 When the Court issued its scheduling order in March 2005, not all of the

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

Document 52

Filed 10/05/2005

Page 1 of 2

1 Defendants had been served. Since the Order was filed, three more defendants have been 2 served and have answered. Additionally, the parties, after an unsuccessful attempt,

3 submitted a Joint Discovery Planning Report on September 12, 2005. Generally, in cases 4 brought by state prisoners such as Plaintiff, discovery planning meetings are not required, 5 see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(E) and 26(f), but if a discovery planning meeting is 6 conducted, "a party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have 7 conferred as required by Rule 26(f)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Because the parties did not 8 conduct their discovery planning meeting and submit their discovery planning report 9 pursuant to Rule 26(f) until about one month after the originally-set discovery deadline 10 had expired, the Defendants have been unable to conduct the discovery necessary to 11 dispose of this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). This request is not made for any improper 12 purpose. 13 WHEREFORE, Defendants request the Court enlarge the deadline to proffer

14 discovery and take Plaintiff's deposition until November 3, 2005 and the dispositive 15 motion deadline to January 13, 2006. 16 17 18 19 20 21 COPY of the foregoing mailed this 5 day of October, 2005 to: 22 23 Charles McManus, #79938 ASPC-Eyman, Meadows Unit 24 P.O. Box 3300 Florence, AZ 85232 25 s/CBailey 26 Secretary, Attorney General's Office
IDS05-0022/927828

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this

5

day of October, 2005.

TERRY GODDARD ATTORNEY GENERAL s/Wanda E. Hofmann WANDA E. HOFMANN Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants

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

Document 52

2

Filed 10/05/2005

Page 2 of 2