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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

J. Steven Sparks (State Bar No. 015561) SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 3030 North Third Street, Suite 1300 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3099 Telephone: (602) 532-5769 Fax: (602) 230-5051 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants GLENDALE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205, TANYA SOTO, STEVE SOTO, ANNIE PRESTON, KEITH PRESTON, CLAY KLAVITTER and JILL KLAVITTER UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

11 12 13 14

JOE RAMIREZ and ANA RAMIREZ, Individually and as Parents and Legal Guardians of JOSE RAMIREZ, Plaintiffs,

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

vs. GLENDALE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205; JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE I-X; ABC CORPORATIONS I-X; and XYZ PARTNERSHIPS I-X, Defendants. __________________________________ JOE RAMIREZ and ANA RAMIREZ, Individually and as Parents and Legal Guardians of JOSE RAMIREZ, Plaintiffs, vs. GLENDALE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 205; TANYA SOTO and
Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS Document 98

) CASE NO.: CIV03-0060 PHX-ROS ) ) ) DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO ) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO ) EXTEND TIME TO COMPLETE ) DISCOVERY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO.: CIV04-2908 PHX-VAM ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Filed 02/02/2006 Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

JOHN DOE SOTO; ANNIE PRESTON and JOHN DOE PRESTON; CLAY KLAVITTER and JANE DOE KLAVITTER; JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE I-X; ABC CORPORATIONS I-X; and XYZ PARTNERSHIPS I-X,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Defendants, by and through counsel undersigned, hereby respond to Plaintiffs'

Motion to Extend Time to Complete Discovery. The Court-ordered discovery cut-off in
9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

this matter was January 27, 2006. Plaintiffs have requested additional time to conduct discovery. The basis for Plaintiffs' Motion is a pending discovery dispute involving two discreet pieces of information that Plaintiffs contend were not disclosed in a manner consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties' respective positions

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

concerning this discovery dispute have been fully set forth in the pleadings related to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. However, for the sake of completeness, these issues will be summarized below. First, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants failed to provide the original notes of assistant principal Annie Preston. This is simply untrue. Defendants produced all of Ms. Preston's notes more than one year ago and Plaintiffs' counsel has been reminded of this fact on repeated occasions. Despite those reminders, Plaintiffs' counsel felt the need to file a Motion to Compel in which he raised issues that he knows to be nonissues. As for the concept of "original" notes, there is simply no such thing. When Ms. Preston testified in deposition that she took notes of her investigation and interviews, she was referring to the computerized notes that were disclosed more than one year ago.
Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS Document 98 - Filed 02/02/2006 -2 Page 2 of 4

1 2 3

There is simply no other set of notes that would be responsive to Plaintiffs' request. Therefore, this aspect of Plaintiffs' argument for more time to conduct discovery is without merit.

4 5 6 7 8

Second, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants withheld the last known contact information for Dominic Guzman. Such information has been provided to Plaintiffs' counsel. While Defendants disagree with the suggestion that Mr. Guzman's contact information was intentionally withheld, Defendants concede that such information

9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

probably could have been provided sooner. There were some unfortunate impediments to Defendants' ability to gather this information, but it has now been gathered and provided to Plaintiffs' counsel. Based upon these facts, Defendants have no objection to Plaintiffs' request for a 30-day extension of the discovery cut-off, except that such

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

extension should be limited to conducting the deposition of Dominic Guzman. Plaintiffs should not be entitled to a brief extension of the discovery cut-off generally, but only as to discovery related to Dominic Guzman. RESPECTFULLY submitted this 2nd day of February, 2006. SANDERS & PARKS, P.C.

By: s/J. Steven Sparks J. Steven Sparks 3030 N. Third Street, Suite 1300 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3099 Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS

Document 98 - Filed 02/02/2006 -3

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAW OFFICES SANDERS & PARKS, P.C. 1300 ABACUS TOWERS 3030 NORTH THIRD STREET PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-3099 TELEPHONE (602) 532-5600 FACSIMILE (602) 532-5700

I hereby certify that on February 2, 2006, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to the Clerk's office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following EM/ECF Registrants: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs To be hand-delivered as a courtesy hard copy on February 2, 2006, to the Honorable Roslyn O. Silver. s/ J. Steven Sparks

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS

Document 98 - Filed 02/02/2006 -4

Page 4 of 4