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

JOE RAMIREZ and ANA RAMIREZ, Individually and as Parents and Legal Guardians of JOSE RAMIREZ, Plaintiffs, 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 101

) CASE NO.: CIV03-0060 PHX-ROS ) ) ) DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO ) PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED ) SCHEDULING ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Filed 02/06/2006 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, object to Plaintiffs' proposed

Scheduling Order that was submitted ­ without a request from the Court and without
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

first consulting defense counsel ­ on this date. The proposed Scheduling Order was submitted via e-mail directly to the Honorable Roslyn O. Silver. Plaintiffs' submission of a proposed Scheduling Order is baffling to say the least. Defendants cannot identify any previously-issued Court Order instructing the parties to

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

submit a revised Scheduling Order. Rather, it appears that Plaintiffs have simply taken it upon themselves to unilaterally submit the referenced Scheduling Order. Defendants object to this proposed Scheduling Order on the grounds that it was never ordered by this Court and Plaintiffs' counsel never bothered to consult with defense counsel prior to its submission. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this submission, however, is the fact that Plaintiffs appear to be using the proposed Scheduling Order as a vehicle to improperly expand upon their previously-filed Motion to Extend Time to Complete Discovery. Plaintiffs' Motion sought only a 30-day extension of the discovery cutoff. It did not address the currently existing disclosure deadlines.

Case 2:03-cv-00060-ROS

Document 101 -2

Filed 02/06/2006

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3

On February 1, 2006, Plaintiffs' counsel submitted a proposed Order, which addressed the only issue raised in their Motion ­ i.e., a 30-day extension of the discovery cutoff.

4 5 6 7 8

Then, earlier today, Plaintiffs unilaterally submitted via e-mail a proposed "Scheduling Order" that goes far beyond the scope of their Motion and includes an extended deadline for disclosure of Plaintiff's expert witnesses and their reports ­ something that was never addressed in Plaintiffs' Motion or in Defendants' Response.

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

Paragraph 3 of the proposed Order states: 3. Plaintiff(s) shall disclose its (their) expert witnesses and reports no later than: any supplemental reports due 30 days after the Court rules on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. The proposed Order also leaves intact Defendants' original expert witness disclosure

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

deadline of December 2, 2005. The issue of expert disclosure was simply not part of Plaintiff's Motion and, thus, should not be included in any Order signed by this Court. The originally-set deadlines should remain intact. Insofar as the proposed Scheduling Order was never requested by the Court, was never submitted to defense counsel for review or comment, and improperly attempts to give Plaintiffs more time to submit expert reports, Defendants object. RESPECTFULLY submitted this 6th 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 101 -3 Filed 02/06/2006 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 6, 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 7, 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 101 -4

Filed 02/06/2006

Page 4 of 4