Free Response - 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

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

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 respond to Defendants' Objection to Plaintiffs' Proposed

16
Scheduling Order.

17
Defendants have objected to the proposed Scheduling Order primarily because

18
Defendants believe the Order was submitted without a request from the Court. On the

19
contrary, via e-mail message on February 1, 2006, the Court requested that the Order be

20
submitted, with date changes, directly to chambers. The proposed Order was submitted,

21
as requested, with a simultaneous e-mail copy to Defendants' counsel.

22
Defendants declare the submission of the proposed scheduling order "baffling."

23
What is more baffling is Defendants' failure to contact Plaintiffs' counsel via e-mail,

24
telephone or fax before filing the Objection accusing Plaintiffs of improper conduct.

25
Plaintiffs' Scheduling Order does not go "beyond the scope" of Plaintiffs' Motion to

26
Extend Time to Complete Discovery; the proposed scheduling order changed the dates for

27
discovery cut-off and disclosure of any supplemental reports from Plaintiffs' expert.

28
...

Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS

Document 103

Filed 02/07/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Plaintiffs' proposed order does not expand the time for disclosing expert witnesses, but only expands the time for any "supplemental reports," making those reports due "30 days after the Court rules on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel." Defendants have failed and refused at every turn to provide necessary disclosure, and should not benefit from their recalcitrance; should Plaintiffs' expert make use of previously withheld information, a supplemental report would be required for trial. The proposed scheduling order notes that fact. If Defendants' Objection is read to mean that Defendants wish to extend their time to disclose any supplemental reports from their expert witness, Plaintiffs have no objection to Defendants' extension of time to disclose supplemental reports. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this day of February, 2006.

/s/ Edward D. Fitzhugh Edward D. Fitzhugh Attorney for Plaintiffs

I hereby certify that on February 7, 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____

25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS

2 Document 103

Filed 02/07/2006

Page 2 of 2