Free Motion to Continue - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

M. Brett Burns (admitted pro hac vice) [email protected] Stephanie K. Osteen (admitted pro hac vice) [email protected] AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 969-2800 facsimile (214) 969-4343 Tricia Schafer (018748) [email protected] MARISCAL, WEEKS, MCINTYRE & FRIEDLANDER, P.A. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 285-5000 facsimile (602) 285-5100 Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Patrice Jerome, No. CV03-1913-PHX-MHM Plaintiff, v. Midway Holdings, Inc. et al. Defendants. Defendants Midway Holdings, Inc. and Midway Chevrolet, Inc. submit this Expedited Second Joint Motion To Continue Dispositive Deadline and show the Court as follows: EXPEDITED SECOND JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE

1
Case 2:03-cv-01913-MHM Document 58 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 1 of 5

1.

Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, the discovery period in this case

closed on October 3, 2005. (Docket Entry No. 44.) The dispositive motion deadline is January 19, 2006. (Docket Entry No. 54.) 2. The parties attempted to schedule the deposition of Jack Colson, the alleged

decision-maker in this employment discrimination and retaliation case, who now lives in Atlanta, Georgia, prior to the close of discovery, but a mutually convenient date for the parties and the witness could not be arranged. Mr. Colson's deposition was originally noticed for September 30, 2005. 3. On September 30, 2005, the parties agreed to conduct the deposition of

Jack Colson on a mutually convenient date after the close of discovery. Accordingly, the deposition was re-noticed by agreement for October 20, 2005. The October 20, 2005 deposition was cancelled at Mr. Colson's request due to a work conflict. The deposition was not rescheduled until December 28, 2005 as the parties diligently engaged in settlement discussions and hoped that settlement might be reached at the settlement conference on December 20, 2005. Settlement was not reached.1 (Docket Entry Nos. 53, 54.) The December 28, 2005 deposition was cancelled at Mr. Colson's request due, again, to a work conflict.

1. This is the second time the parties have requested an extension of the dispositive motion deadline. On October 11, 2005, the parties moved to extend the deadline until the settlement conference was completed. (Docket Entry No. 49.) The Court granted the motion. (Docket Entry No. 50.)

2
Case 2:03-cv-01913-MHM Document 58 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 2 of 5

4.

On December 29, 2005, counsel for Defendants informed counsel for

Plaintiff that the only dates prior to the current summary judgment deadline on which Mr. Colson was available for deposition were January 3, 4, 16, 17, or 18. Plaintiff's counsel, however, stated that he was not available for a deposition in Atlanta, Georgia on these dates due to scheduling and trial preparation conflicts. Plaintiff's counsel is in trial this week and is scheduled to be in trial again on January 23, 2006. 5. The parties conferred again on January 6, 2006 in an attempt to reach an

agreement concerning the scheduling of Mr. Colson's deposition before the summary judgment deadline. The parties realized, at that time, that a mutually convenient date before the summary judgment deadline could not be arranged and agreed to seek a one month extension of the summary judgment deadline to accommodate a deposition of Mr. Colson on February 8, 2006. Mr. Colson has been contacted and is available to be deposed on February 8, 2006. The parties have agreed to take Mr. Colson's deposition on this date. 6. Wherefore, the parties request that the Court continue the dispositive

motion deadline thirty days from January 19, 2006 until February 16, 2006, to allow time for the completion of Mr. Colson's deposition. This request is not sought for purposes of delay but so that justice may be done. The parties request this extension to allow them to properly present their respective cases to the Court. The parties have worked diligently to find a mutually agreeable time to take Mr. Colson's deposition, and do not anticipate any further extensions or delay.

3
Case 2:03-cv-01913-MHM Document 58 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 3 of 5

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant their joint motion and continue the dispositive motion deadline in this case until February 16, 2006. DATED this 12th day of January, 2006. /s/ Stephen G. Montoya (with permission) Stephen G. Montoya Montoya Jimenez, P. A. 3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2550 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 256-6718 Facsimile: (602) 256-6667 Attorney for Plaintiff /s/ Stephanie K. Osteen M. Brett Burns (admitted pro hac vice) Stephanie K. Osteen (admitted pro hac vice) AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100 Dallas, Texas 75201-4618 (214) 969-2800 facsimile (214) 969-4343 Tricia Schafer MARISCAL, WEEKS, MCINTYRE & FRIEDLANDER, P.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 285-5000 facsimile (602) 285-5100 Attorneys for Defendants

4
Case 2:03-cv-01913-MHM Document 58 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 4 of 5

I hereby certify that on this 12th day of January, 2006, I electronically transmitted the foregoing to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing [and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants]: Stephen G. Montoya Montoya Jiminez, P.A. 3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2550 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorney for Plaintiff COPY hand-delivered to: Honorable Mary H. Murguia United States District Court Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 525 401 West Washington Street, SPC 53 Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2154

By: /s/ Stephanie K. Osteen
#5854223

5
Case 2:03-cv-01913-MHM Document 58 Filed 01/12/2006 Page 5 of 5