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

1 Joseph E. Lambert (013923)
Joseph E. Lambert, P.C.
2 Mesa Commerce Center ~
1930 South Alma School Road
3 Suite A-1 15
Mesa, Arizona 85210
4 (480) 755-0772
5 Attorney for Defendants
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
THOMAS J. LARIOS;
8 No. CV-03-2285 PHX SRB
Plaintiff,
9
v. I UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND
10 TIME FOR DISCLOSURE OF
RALPH E. OGDEN; YUMA COUNTY EXPERT WITNESS (First)
11 SHERIFF’S OFFICE; AND YUMA
COUNTY;
Ԥ 12
_ Defendants.
E , a. 13
3;*; 14 Defendants Yuma County Sheriff’ s Office ("YCSO") and Yuma County ("County")
3 gi 15 hereby move the Court to extend the time for the parties to disclose expert witnesses on the
.:1 <=: g §< Q 16 issue of undue hardship on grounds of excusablc neglect. The issue was not recognized as
VJ
§ 17 important to the arguments of either party until the Court raised it in its Order of July 15,
18 2005. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion.
19 This Motion is supported by the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
20 Authorities, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
21 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 44 day of August, 2005.
22 JOSEPH E. LAMBERT, P.C.
23 (
24 9 A (
Jos ‘ . Lam ert
25 Attorney for Defendants
26 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
27 In denying Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ") as to Plaintiffs
28 ADA claim, the Court correctly observed that the specific issue of undue hardship was not
Case 2:03-cv-02285-SRB Document 49 Filed 08/O4/2005 Page 1 of 3

1 raised or briefed by Defendants in their MSJ or Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion
2 for Summary Judgment ("Reply"). Order (Docket No. 44) at 13. The reason the issue
3 was not raised or briefed, however, is that Plaintiff Thomas J. Larios’ Response to
4 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment ("Response") never adduced evidence
5 showing the existence and rejection of an apparently reasonable accommodation and the
6 burden to show undue hardship therefore never shifted to Defendants. See MSJ at 11-16;
7 Response at 6-7; Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration ("Motion for
8 Reconsideration") at 6-9.
9 Now that the Court has defined the issues remaining as whether Defendants
10 engaged in the interactive process and whether it would have been an undue hardship for
11 Defendants to return Plaintiff to the Warrants Officer position, Defendants need time to
Q 12 identify and disclose experts in police management and discipline who can testify to the
B g 13 hardship that would be imposed by forcing YCSO to restore Plaintiff to the position from
Ig? 14 which he was demoted for insubordination and other misconduct, as an ostensible
E gg 15 "accommodation" of his alleged disability.
gf g 16 The Court’s Scheduling Order of May 24, 2004 (Docket No. 17) set September 1,
§ 17 2004 as the deadline for disclosing expert witnesses, except damages experts who must
18 be disclosed by Plaintiff by 30 days after disposition of Defendants’ MSJ and by
19 Defendants by 60 days after disposition of Defendants’ MSJ. In light of the briefing
20 schedule established in the Court’s July 15, 2005 Order, Defendants request that Plaintiff
21 be allowed until thirty ("30") days after final disposition of the pending Motion for
22 Reconsideration to identify and disclose expert witnesses on the issues of undue hardship
23 and damages and that Defendant be allowed until sixty ("60") days after final disposition
24 of the pending Motion for Reconsideration to identify and disclose expert witnesses on
25 the issues of undue hardship and damages.
26 Given their understanding of the two-step process for analyzing reasonable
27 accommodation/undue hardship, as set forth in their Motion for Reconsideration,
28 Defendants’ failure to anticipate the need to establish undue hardship was the result of
- 2 -
Case 2:03-cv-02285-SRB Document 49 Filed 08/O4/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 excusable neglect.
2 Conclusion
3 The Court should grant Plaintiff until thirty ("30") days after the Court’s final
4 disposition of their Motion for Summary Judgment (by ruling on the pending Motion for
5 Reconsideration) to disclose his expert witnesses on damages and the issue of undue
6 hardship. The Court should grant Defendants until sixty ("60") days after the Court’s
7 final disposition of their Motion for Summary Judgment (by ruling on the pending
8 Motion for Reconsideration) to disclose expert witnesses on damages and on the issue of
9 undue hardship.
10 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this Qééday of August, 2005.
11
Ln 12 JOSEPH E. LAMBERT, P.C.
Q O 13
BT‘,,._§g§14 Jos .Lame1t
E to 8 _° Q At orney for Defendants
pj gg E gg is
@2: "‘ §h‘* COPY OQTHE F OREGOING emailed
E, E 16 this { day of August, 2005, to:
§ 17 Robert M. Cook
The Law Offices of Robert M. Cook
18 Missouri Commons, Suite 150
1430 East Missouri
19 Phoenix, Arizona 85014
Attorney for Plaintiff
20
21 é é Z
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3 -
Case 2:03-cv—O2285—SRB Document 49 Filed 08/O4/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02285-SRB

Document 49

Filed 08/04/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02285-SRB

Document 49

Filed 08/04/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02285-SRB

Document 49

Filed 08/04/2005

Page 3 of 3