Free Objection - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

I gérgégji-ggld ,i;“EEEE.VE¤ ;2ZZ$ED }
2 Salome, AZ. 85348 MAY 2 4 2006 .
3 I CLERK US otsmncr counr
oust incr oe Aatzoma
A IN THE UNITED STATES DIST
5 .
6 FOR THE DISTRICT OP ARIZONA
l
8 James W. Field, ) Case No.: CV03-2214-PHX-SRB
9 Plaintiff, i PLAINTIFFS REAFERMATION OF
) OBJ ECTION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION
10 vs. ) TO TAKE DEPOSITION OF PETE HEERE
11 La Paz County et. al., g
12 Defendant i
13
14 Comes now Plaintiff mentioned above in OBJECT ION to LA PAZ DEFENDANT S
15 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE TRIAL DEPOSITION OF PETE HEERE. The La Paz
16 Defendants motion must be denied for the following reasons.
17 PROCEDURAL HISTORY
18 On July 27, 2005, the Court entered a Scheduling Order regarding all deadliness in this
19 matter. This Order identifies the deadline for all discovery, including answers to interrogatories,
20 production of documents, depositions and requests to admit must be completed by NOVEMBER 30th
21 2005.
22 Furthermore in the same Order this Court said, "Depositions shall be limited as provided by
23 Rules 30 and 31 of the Fed.R.Civ.P. unless granted permission to depart from these Rules by Order o
24 this Court" AND .. "This order contemplates that each party will conduct discovery to permit
25 completion within the deadline. Any discovery which results in insufficient time to undertake
Case 2:03—cv—02214—SFlB Document 200+ Filed 05/24/2006 Page 1 of 4

1 necessary additional discovery and which requires an extension of the discovery deadline will be met
2 with disfavor, will only be granted for good cause shown, and may result in denial of an extension,
3 exclusion of evidence, or the imposition of other sanctions".
4 Counsel for La Paz County has had almost 4 years to gather testimony in this matter;
5 furthermore, the Defendants have known this case is scheduled for trial on June 13m 2006 for nearly a
6 full year. The Court should not allow defendants to conduct a deposition at this late time, Pro se
7 plaintiff is working diligently in preparation for the trial in this case, and has many plans
8 encompassing each and every day remaining before trial, therefore plaintiff will suffer inherent
9 prejudice by having to rearrange his trial preparation schedule to attend this deposition. Deputy Heere
10 has known of the trial date for a year and should not have scheduled his "out of Country excursion fo
11 a time when this court has Ordered the trial will be held.
12 LEGAL ARGUMENT
13 Under Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (1992) when a party
14 attempts to set aside or adjust the deadlines set in the Scheduling Order, "good cause" must be
15 shown.1 Once the District Court has filed a Pretrial Scheduling Order, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.16,
16 establishing a timetable for amending pleadings, the "schedule cannot be modified except by leave
17 of [the district court] upon a showing of good cause"2 Rule 16(b)’s “good cause" standard primarily
18 considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The District Court may modify the
19 pretrial schedule "if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the
20 extensi0n"3 Moreover, carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason
21 for a grant of relief. Thus, if a party was not diligent in complying with the Court’s deadlines, the
22 `
23 1 975 F.2d 604, 609 (1992).
24 21d. at 609.
25 3See generally Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 ) Ariz 2000); Johnson, 975 at 609; FED.R.CIV>P 16
advisory committee’s notes (1983) amendment; Amcastlndas. Corp. v. Detrex. Corp., 132 F.R.DD. 213, 217 (N.D. Ind.
1990); 6A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 )2d ed. 1990) ("good cause" means
scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite party’s diligence?)
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 200°2` Filed 05/24/2006 Page 2 of 4

1 inquiry should end. As outlined, the Court’s July 27, 2005, Scheduling Order clearly identified the
2 deadlines in this case. Furthermore the la paz defendants have categorically objected to every motion
3 requesting an extension of time or modification of the rules the pro se plaintiffs have filed sense the
4 deadlines set forth in the courts Rule 16 scheduling order.
5 Now the La Paz Defendants have filed a Motion for Leave to Take Trial Deposition of Pete
6 Heere on May 31st, 2006 over 170 days after the deadline expired for taking depositions in this case.
7 . La Paz Defendants were aware of the November 30 2005, discovery deadline and their
8 failure to follow by the order of this court should not be forgiven. If the testimony of Pete Heere is
9 crucial to the defendants case Mr. Heere should be advised to reschedule the dates he will be out of
10 country. Otherwise the La Paz Defendants should proceed to trial without this witness.
11 This request is inherently prejudicial to the Pro Se Plaintiffs. Every litigate should be treated
12 equal, as all parties have received the same deadlines in which to proceed under, there is simply no
13 good cause to grant this request. La Paz Defendants requesting permission to conduct a deposition 13
14 days before trial is to begin is unheard of and must be denied.
15 CONCLUSION
16 Plaintiff Objects to any alteration of the schedule that is in place in this matter, the taking of a
17 Disposition at this late time may cause additional delays that will prejudice plaintiffs, it has already
18 been 4 % years since these Defendants terminated power to Plaintiffs property without notice.
19 Plaintiff respectfully request this Court to DENY La Paz Defendants Motion to take
20 Deposition from Pete Heere on May 31, 2006 or on any date for that matter. Everyone has had plenty
21 of time to prepare and everyone has been infonned of the Trial date at the Rule 16 Scheduling
22 Conference on July 27, 2005.
23 Respectfully submitted this of May 2006.
2-4 /0 ..., Y
25 Se Plaintiff, James W. Field
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 200‘3` Filed 05/24/2006 Page 3 of 4

1 ORIGINAL and one Copy of the foregoing
Filed this Q 72 day of May 2006 with
2 .
3 The Clerk ofthe Court
Sandra Day O’Cor1nor Federal Courthouse
4 Suite 130
401 W. Washington St. SPC1
5 Phx. AZ. 85003
6 .
A Copy of the foregomg sent
7 This gg day of May 2006 to
Gaona Law Firm
8 3101 N. Central Ave.
Suite 720
9 Phx. Az. 85012
10 Jones, Skelton & Hochuli
2901 N. Central Ave.
11 Suite 800
Phx. AZ. 85012
12
is BY JL? f.·.,,,/
Tamm %
14 Plair1tiffs’ Assistant
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 200`“4` Filed 05/24/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 200

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 200

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 200

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 200

Filed 05/24/2006

Page 4 of 4