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
Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI Document 46 1 - Filed 07/13/2005 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Charles McManus, Plaintiff -vsCarl B. Dodge, et al., Defendant(s) CV-03-2327-PHX-MHM (JI) ORDER

Under consideration is Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Conduct Rule 26(f) Conference, filed May 19, 2005 (#41) and Motion to Strike Defendants' Discovery Meeting Report, filed May 26, 2005 (#43). Defendants have not responded to either motion. The Court ordered the parties to confer and file a joint discovery plan. (Order 3/24/05, #28). On May 15, 2004, Defendants filed a "Defendants' Discovery Meeting Report." Defendants relate the following: Plaintiff has not given undersigned counsel permission to file this Report on his behalf. He objected to the Report being filed because he requires more than the half hour that counsel was able to schedule to confer with Plaintiff. (Report, #40 at 1.) Plaintiff reports that defense counsel simply read her draft to Plaintiff and then proposed that they each file their own separate discovery plans. The Defendants' report is wholly unilateral in its responses. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike argues that Plaintiff was aware that defense counsel had only scheduled 30 minutes for their conference, and that Plaintiff repeatedly attempted to have counsel reschedule the conference to a date when she had more time available. Plaintiff argues that the "Report" submitted by Defendants does not comply with the Court's order. Indeed, it does not. No basis for failure to comply with the Court's order has been shown by Defendants. Accordingly, the motion to strike will be granted.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Plaintiff originally sought an extension of time to conduct the conference and file the discovery plan. In his motion to strike, however, he expressed belief that the parties would not be able to work together on a joint discovery plan. That outcome is not acceptable to the Court. The parties have been directed to provide a joint report. They are expected to dedicate the time, energy, and restraint necessary to accomplish the task. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Conduct Rule 26(f) Conference, filed May 19, 2005 (#41) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Discovery Meeting Report, filed May 26, 2005 (#43) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Discovery Meeting Report, filed May 16, 2005 (#40) shall be STRICKEN. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have thirty days from the filing of this Order to file a JOINT discovery plan as previously ordered.

DATED: July 12, 2005 16
S:\Drafts\OutBox\03-2327-41o Order 05 06 20 re MStrike MExtend.wpd

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-02327-MHM-JRI

_____________________________________ JAY R. IRWIN United States Magistrate Judge

Document 46 2 - Filed 07/13/2005 -

Page 2 of 2