Gandy v. Shaklan-Brown et al

Filing 123

ORDER - Currently before the Court is the parties' 121 Stipulated Motion to Stay the Proceedings and Refer the Matter to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Aspey or Another Settlement Judge for a Second Settlement Conference. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that t his matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Aspey for a second settlement conference. FURTHER ORDERED that if settlement is successful, the parties shall file a Notice of Settlement within five (5) calendar days of the settlement conference. F URTHER ORDERED that if the settlement conference is not successful, Dr. Gandy shall file his Response to the pending Motion for Summary Jgm within two calendar weeks after the conclusion of the settlement conference. There shall be no further discovery with respect to the pending Motion for Summary Jgm. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 6/23/09. (SAT)

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

D. Douglas Gandy, D.O., Plaintiff, vs. Lynne Shaklan-Brown, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 06-CV-3072-PHX-PGR ORDER

Currently before the Court is the parties' Stipulated Motion to: (1) Stay the Proceedings and (2) Refer the Matter to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Aspey or Another Settlement Judge for a Second Settlement Conference.(Doc. 121.) The parties propose that this Court order that within five (5) days after the conclusion of the settlement conference, the parties file either a Notice of Settlement or stipulated proposal setting forth any remaining deadlines in this case including, inter alia, a date by which supplemental discovery pertaining to the pending counterclaim will be completed and the date by which Counterdefendant Dr. Gandy must respond to Counterclaimant Dr. Shaklan-Brown's pending Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. #118.) According to the May 18, 2009 hearing, Mr. Enoch, counsel for Dr. Gandy, represented to this Court that he would not seek to reopen discovery nor seek another round of dispositive motions. Upon consideration of such statements, counsel for Dr. ShaklanBrown agreed that "all of the discovery that is necessary to resolve this matter is­has been done." However, upon learning of the imminent filing of a motion for summary judgment on

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

the pending counterclaim, Mr. Enoch added a Rule 56 (f) caveat, stating that Dr. Gandy would seek to establish whether relief was to be afforded to him under Rule 56 (f) to conduct further discovery. The Court advises that the mere filing of the instant motion does not amount to establishing discovery should be reopened under Rule 56 (f) nor why further delay should result. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Aspey for a second settlement conference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if settlement is successful, the parties shall file a Notice of Settlement within five (5) calendar days of the settlement conference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the settlement conference is not successful, Dr. Gandy shall file his Response to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment1 within two calendar weeks after the conclusion of the settlement conference. There shall be no further discovery with respect to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment. DATED this 23rd day of June, 2009.

The pending Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. 118) was filed May 18, 2009. Nearly one month later, on June 12, 2009, the pending Motion to Stay the Proceedings was filed. (Doc. 121.) Therefore, providing Gandy with two weeks to file his Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, subsequent to the settlement conference, is more than adequate under the Local Rules. See L.R.Civ. 56.1
1

-2-