Free Order on Motion to Quash - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Joseph Arpaio, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Nathaniel Hearn's ("Plaintiff") appeal of 17 Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey's order granting Defendants' motion for extension of time 18 to file dispositive motions. (Dkt.#34). On January 5, 2007, the Magistrate Judge granted 19 Defendants' request for an extension to file any dispositive motions no later than February 20 2, 2007, despite the previous expiration of the original dispositive motion deadline of 21 December 1, 2006. (Dkt.#31). Plaintiff has appealed that order and contends that such an 22 extension was improper and that the Magistrate Judge failed to afford Plaintiff an opportunity 23 to oppose Defendants' motion. In reviewing the history of this case and the arguments 24 advanced by Plaintiff, the Court finds that it is appropriate to affirm the Magistrate Judge's 25 ruling. Although the Defendants did not move for an extension until after the previous 26 dispositive motion deadline, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge properly his exercised 27 discretion in granting the extension. See Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 28
Case 2:03-cv-01924-MHM-MEA Document 39 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nathaniel Hearn, Plaintiff, vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CIV 03-1924-PHX-MHM ORDER

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

F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation.). Moreover, there clearly is an interest in first addressing the merits of Plaintiff's case upon dispositive motions before proceeding to trial. Lastly, the Magistrate Judge's ruling before any response from the Plaintiff does not warrant reversing the decision to extend the dispositive motion deadline. Thus, there is nothing before the Court to suggest that the Magistrate Judge's decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion to Quash the Court's January 4, 2007 order. (Dkt.#34). DATED this 22nd day of February, 2007.

-2Case 2:03-cv-01924-MHM-MEA Document 39 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 2 of 2