Free Motion for Extension of Time - 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

Angela M. Wilson-Goodman State Bar No. 017558 WILSON-GOODMAN & FONG, P.C. 538 S. Gilbert Road, Suite 101 Gilbert, Arizona 85296 (480) 503-9217 Fax: (480) 503-9219 Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MARY CSANYI, Plaintiff, vs. REGIS CORPORATION; SUPER CUTS, Defendants.

) Case No.: CV-03-1987-PHX-JAT ) ) ) MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR ) DISCOVERY ) ) ) ) )

Plaintiff, MARY CSANYI, by and through counsel undersigned, hereby moves this Court pursuant to Rule 6(b) and Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to enlarge time for discovery. This Motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and all pleadings herein. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. On September 1, 2005, Plaintiff retained undersigned counsel to represent her in this matter because the case has become too complex for Plaintiff to handle on her own. Prior to this date, Plaintiff was pro se. Now that undersigned counsel has reviewed the case file and gotten up to speed on the legal issues, it has become apparent that discovery has not been completed. None of Defendant's witnesses have been deposed, and there is still records and documentation that needs to be produced.

Case 2:03-cv-01987-JAT

-1Document 64

Filed 11/11/2005

Page 1 of 3

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

In the Rule 16 Scheduling Order issued by this Court on April 19, 2004, it was ordered that the Parties complete all discovery by October 1, 2004. Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a schedule shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by leave of the district judge or, when authorized by local rule by a magistrate judge. The granting or denying of a motion to enlarge time for discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Manofskey v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 69 Ohio App.3d 663 (1990). Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part that "When these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of the court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion ... (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect." Under this rule, the court may at its

discretion allow an extension of time for "cause shown" regardless of whether the request is made before, or subsequent to, the period originally prescribed. Air Power v. Superior Court, In and For Maricopa County, 142 Ariz. 492, 690 P2d 793 (1984). The rule further requires excusable neglect, which is not well defined by case law. The court must decide what constitutes excusable neglect on a case-by-case basis. The federal courts have liberally utilized the provisions of Rule 6(b) to relieve litigants after expiration of the time prescribed for doing certain acts. Garcia v. Frey, 7 Ariz. App 601, 442 P2d 159 (1968). It would be extremely prejudicial to the Plaintiff not to allow her attorney adequate time to complete discovery in this case. The Plaintiff was doing her best to represent herself until she realized that she was in over her head once the court issued the Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference. At that time, the Plaintiff realized she needed the assistance of counsel and thus retained an attorney to represent her. Plaintiff needs an additional ninety (90) days to take approximately six depositions and submit straightforward interrogatory requests and requests for production. This could be

Case 2:03-cv-01987-JAT

-2Document 64

Filed 11/11/2005

Page 2 of 3

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

completed in sixty (60) days normally, however, with the two major holidays fast approaching, holidays and vacations may hinder the completion of the depositions prior to the end of the year. The Defendant would not be prejudiced by a short enlargement of time to complete additional discovery and allow Plaintiff's counsel to take a few depositions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge Time to Complete Discovery, and extend the discovery deadline for ninety (90) days. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 11th day of November, 2005. WILSON-GOODMAN & FONG, P.C.

/s/ Angela M. Wilson-Goodman Angela M. Wilson-Goodman Attorney for Plaintiff ORIGINAL of the foregoing filed this 11th day of November, 2005, with: Clerk of Court United States District Court District of Arizona - Phoenix Division Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 130 401 West Washington Street, SPC 1 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118 COPIES of the foregoing mailed this 11th day of November, 2005, to: The Honorable James A. Teilborg United States District Judge Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 523 401 West Washington Street, SPC 51 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2154 Ronald J. Stolkin FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. 3003 N. Central Ave., Suite 2600 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2913 Attorney for Defendant /s/ Kim Johnson

Case 2:03-cv-01987-JAT

-3Document 64

Filed 11/11/2005

Page 3 of 3