Free Motion to Continue - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4

EDWARD D. FITZHUGH P.O. Box 24238 Tempe, Arizona 85285-4238 (480) 752-2200 Bar No. 007138 Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

6 7 8 9 10
vs. Joe Ramirez and Ana Ramirez, Individually and as Parents and Legal Guardians of Jose Ramirez; Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV03-0060 PHX-ROS

MOTION TO CONTINUE RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11 12 13 14 15
Glendale Union High School District No. 205; John Doe and Jane Doe I-X; ABC Corporations I-X; and XYZ Partnerships I-X, Defendants.

(Assigned to the Honorable Roslyn O. Silver)

COME NOW Plaintiffs and respectfully request that the Court temporarily postpone

16
its ruling on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

17
After years of litigation, Defendants have only now (January 27, 2006) disclosed the

18
last known address of a key witness, Dominic Guzman. Mr. Guzman was one of the

19
teacher's aides responsible for monitoring the young men involved in the assault on

20
Plaintiff Jose Ramirez. Defense counsel had informed plaintiffs' counsel that in 2001 Mr.

21
Guzman quit his employment with Glendale Union High School District and moved to

22
California without leaving a forwarding address.

23
Using the now-disclosed address information, Plaintiffs have initiated a skip-trace

24
on Mr. Guzman. And, with the disclosure of the actual date of Mr. Guzman's termination

25
from the District (March 2001, mid-semester; the very month and year that Defendant

26
School District investigated the assault on Jose), Plaintiffs have submitted interrogatories

27
to Defendants, asking them to state the reasons why Mr. Guzman left his employment.

28
The basis of Defendants' pending Motion for Summary Judgment is that Plaintiffs had not produced an expert witness who would testifyFiledthe appropriate Page 1 ofof care that 02/13/2006 standard 3 Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS Document 106

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

in this case required that these mentally handicapped young men be constantly monitored. While the need is obvious, Plaintiffs also submitted, from Defendants' own records, evidence that one of the perpetrators, Ramon Navarros, was not merely a mentally handicapped student, but also had an extensive history of physical violence towards other students. Another obvious fact is that defense counsel would not have deliberately withheld information regarding Mr. Guzman, if it were not relevant and important. Plaintiffs anticipate that Mr. Guzman will testify about the events on the day of the assault, and the reasons that he was terminated from his employment with Defendant Glendale Union High School District. The Court may question why plaintiffs' counsel accepted the representations of defense counsel about Mr. Guzman's whereabouts and his role in the matter, especially considering defense counsel's record. However, Plaintiffs request that the Court consider the actions of both counsel in the context of the information-gathering necessary for litigation: Defense counsel has, yet again, withheld relevant evidence that was clearly in Defendants' records since 2001, all the while (again) representing to plaintiffs' counsel that Defendants did not have the information; and, plaintiffs' counsel made the mistake of accepting these representations. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court continue its ruling on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment until Dominic Guzman has been located and deposed, or Defendants file verified Answers to Interrogatories regarding Mr. Guzman's role in this matter; and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of February, 2006. /s/ Edward D. Fitzhugh Edward D. Fitzhugh Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS

2 Document 106

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I hereby certify that on February 13, 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: J. Steven Sparks, Esq. Sanders & Parks, P.C. 3030 N. Third Street, Ste. 1300 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3099 Attorneys for Defendants ___/s/S.J. Odneal____

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS

3 Document 106

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 3 of 3