Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

John T. Masterson, Bar #007447 Jennifer L. Holsman, Bar #022787 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 263-1700 Fax: (602) 200-7846 [email protected] [email protected] Attorney for Defendants Brad Weekley, Penny Dahlberg, Guy Gorman and Dave Boatwright UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA James W. Field, Plaintiff, v. County of La Paz, et al., Defendants. LA PAZ COUNTY DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S BAD FAITH MOTION CV 03-2214-PHX SRB

Defendants Weekley, Boatwright, Dahlberg and Gorman, through counsel, submit this Response to Plaintiff's Bad Faith Motion. Although the Court has already signed off on the Joint Pre-Trial Statement, Defendants feel compelled to set the record straight regarding the baseless allegations contained in Plaintiff's Motion. This Motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, exhibits attached hereto and any oral argument the Court may hold in this matter. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES On May 16, 2006, the parties held a "meet and confer" to discuss the pretrial documents to be filed with the Court on May 23, 2006. At that meeting, all parties agreed that time was of the essence and that working together to complete the projects would be
1640782.1

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 209

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 1 of 5

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

critical. In addition, the parties understood that any information in the Joint Pretrial Order that was specific to the party (i.e. Plaintiff's factual issues in dispute, etc.) should be forwarded to defense counsel Holsman to be inserted into the Joint Pretrial Order as soon as possible. Finally, the parties scheduled another meet and confer for May 22, 2006, to finalized all documents. The following is a timeline of events following the May 16 meet and confer1. May 18, 2006 · Defendants sent proposed Joint Voir Dire, La Paz County Defendants' Verdict Forms and a Joint Proposed Statement of the Case to the parties for review. May 19, 2006 · Defendants sent Joint Proposed Jury Instructions to the parties. May 22, 2006 · At 9:00 a.m., Defendants sent the parties the Proposed Pretrial Order and Joint Voir Dire so that the document could be discussed during the meet and confer scheduled later that afternoon. · At 12:30 p.m., Plaintiff sent draft documents, including his portions of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order and proposed Voir Dire. · At 1:30, Plaintiff sent another draft copy of proposed Voir Dire and an exhibit list. These documents included the following statement: "My rough draft thoughts are in bold, I will send final draft later tonight (sic) I have other objections to above format I will include later also." · At 2:00, counsel for La Paz County and APS participated in the final meet and confer to discuss the documents as prepared. Plaintiff did not participate in the meet and confer. At approximately 2:30, Plaintiff sent an email to the parties requesting the meeting be rescheduled.
1

26

If the Court would like copies of all email communication with Plaintiff, Defendants would be happy to file a supplemental document with this information.
2

1640782.1

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 209

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 2 of 5

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
1640782.1

· At approximately 3:30, Plaintiff sent a revised Proposed Joint Statement of the Case, making additions to Plaintiff's sections of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. May 23, 2006 · At 11:00 a.m., Plaintiff again sent revisions to his sections of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. · At 11:25, Plaintiff sent additional jury instructions and his objections to the previously distributed Jury Instructions. · At 12:25, Plaintiff again sent more revisions/objections to the Jury Instructions. · At 1:00, defense counsel advised Plaintiff that if "joint" documents could not be prepared by the deadline for filing pretrial documents that evening, "separate" documents would have to be filed. · Also at 1:00, Plaintiff sent additional revisions to his sections of the Pretrial Order. · Final proposed (with the changes proposed by each party) were sent to the parties between 2:00-2:20 p.m. This included, Proposed Jury Instructions, the Proposed Statement of the Case, the Proposed Voir Dire and the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. Because the parties were not able to come to an agreement on the Jury Instruction, Statement of the Case or Voir Dire, Defendants submitted their portions separately from Plaintiff (in the same document). · At 3:50, Plaintiff informed Defendants that he would be unable to finish the Pretrial Order by the end of the day and requested an "extension" to work on the documents. Plaintiff was advised that because defense counsel would be out of town on business for the remainder of the week, all pretrial documents would need to be filed by the court imposed deadline of May 23, 2006. · At approximately 4:15, defense counsel advised Plaintiff that they would be happy to remove Plaintiff's additions to the Pretrial Order, so that they could file a separate document.
3

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 209

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 3 of 5

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
2

· At 4:45, Tammy Doud, Plaintiff's assistant, contacted defense counsel Holsman regarding the Pretrial Order. Ms. Doud advised Ms. Holsman that the Pretrial Order could be filed (pursuant to the last draft forwarded by Plaintiff) as long as a statement regarding a "supplement" that may be filed by Plaintiff was filed. This information was included in the Pretrial Order and subsequently filed. The purpose of filing a response to Plaintiff's baseless motion was to illustrate for the court the steps taken to work with Plaintiff in the development of the pretrial documents. In addition, the document which Plaintiff accuses defense counsel of filing in "bad faith" has a statement that reads, "Tammy Doud, Plaintiff's assistant, contacted defense counsel at 4:45 p.m. on May 23, 2006, and advised that Mr. Field reserved the right to supplement the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order. If Plaintiff files a supplement, Defendants reserve the right to file their objections."2 This sentence clearly put the Court on notice that Plaintiff may make revisions once again to his section of the Pretrial Order (and was inserted into the document based on a directive by Plaintiff's assistant). Defendants are unclear as to what more, if anything, could have been done with the Pretrial Order (Plaintiff has also never advised defense counsel what was either left out of the Pretrial Order, what was cut and pasted incorrectly, what he wanted to add, etc.). As outlined, no reasonable person would find bad faith on the part of the Defendants. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff's Bad Faith Motion be denied.

As the Court is aware, Plaintiff filed a "Supplament (sic) to Proposed Joint Pretrial Order" on June 6, 2006. Due to the tardiness in filing this document, Defendants intend to object to all additional exhibits and witnesses listed.
4

1640782.1

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 209

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 4 of 5

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

DATED this 12th day of June, 2006. JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

BY s/Jennifer L. Holsman John T. Masterson Jennifer L. Holsman 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants Brad Weekley, Penny Dahlberg, Guy Gorman and Dave Boatwright COPY of the foregoing mailed by postage prepaid certified US mail, this even date to: James. W. Field PO Box 248 Salome, Arizona 85348 Plaintiff Pro Per s/Colleen Webb

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1640782.1

5

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 209

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 5 of 5