Guillen v. Owens et al
Filing
174
ORDER denying 173 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time. Dispositive motion deadline is extended to 12/16/11. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 12/2/11.(TLJ)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Karl Louis Guillen,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
Quincy Owens, et al,
)
)
)
Defendants.
_________________________________ )
No. CV-10-226-PHX-JWS (LOA)
ORDER
15
This case comes before the Court on Defendants’ timely Motion to Extend Time to
16
File Dispositive Motions. (Doc. 173) Because of the urgency of a ruling and there being no
17
undue prejudice to Plaintiff by doing so, the Court rules on the Motion without waiting for a
18
response.
19
On April 14, 2011, the Court entered a Scheduling and Discovery Order,
20
establishing a December 2, 2011 deadline for filing dispositive motions. (Doc. 55) On
21
December 2, 2011, Defendants filed the pending motion, seeking to extend the dispositive
22
motion deadline for sixty days. Defendants’ counsel, Assistant Attorney General Michael
23
Gottfried, explains that he was recently assigned to this case because the previous counsel
24
handling this matter, Michele Forney, was moved to another section of the Attorney
25
General’s Office. Defendants’ counsel explains that he needs an additional sixty days to
26
familiarize himself with this case and to prepare a dispositive motion.
27
28
Mr. Gottfried’s characterization of his assignment to this case as “recent” is a bit
1
of an exaggeration. The record reflects that Mr. Gottfried was substituted as counsel on
2
October 28, 2011. (Doc. 166) Thus, he has had at least thirty days to familiarize himself
3
with this matter and to prepare a dispositive motion. Counsel does not provide any reason,
4
aside from his “recent” assignment to this matter, why he is unable to timely file a dipositive
5
motion.
Moreover, Mr. Gottfried does not explain why the former attorney assigned to this
6
7
case, Ms. Forney, did not prepare a dispositive motion before being moved to a different
8
section in the Attorney General’s office. Former counsel was surely aware of the December
9
2, 2011 dispositive motion deadline, and there is no explanation why she was unable to
10
prepare a dispositive motion before her transfer. Further, because Ms. Forney still works at
11
the Attorney General’s office, albeit in “another section,” the Court cannot discern why Ms.
12
Forney, who is familiar with this case, cannot share her knowledge with Mr. Gottfried and
13
assist in preparing a dispositive motion. In short, Defendants’ counsel has not explained
14
how, what appears to have been a routine staffing change, has impeded his or the Attorney
15
General’s office ability to meet the dispositive motion deadline in a case that is nearly two
16
years old.
17
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) provides that:
18
When an action may or must be done within a specified time, the court may,
for good cause, extend the time:
19
20
21
22
(A) with or without motion or notice it the court acts, or if a request is made,
before the original time or its extension expires.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1) (emphasis added).
The Ninth Circuit has equated the good cause standard with the exercise of due
23
diligence. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit has explained that the district court may modify the
24
pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking
25
the extension.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee’s notes (1983 amendment); Johnson v.
26
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). “Good
27
cause” means the Rule 16 scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite the party’s diligence,
28
citing Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed. 1990). Id.
-2-
1
The ordinary staffing change described in Defendants’ motion does not satisfy the
2
good cause standard, especially where the former counsel still works in the Attorney
3
General’s Office, had knowledge of the dispositive motion deadline, and presumably can
4
educate the new attorney regarding this matter. There is no evidence that, despite the
5
exercise of diligence, Defendants could not have meet the dispostive motion deadline. As
6
this Magistrate Judge has previously written by analogy to Rule 4(m), “[t]o hold that good
7
cause has been shown here ‘would allow the good cause exception to swallow the rule.’”
8
Williams v. City of Mesa, 2010 WL 2803880, * 1 (D.Ariz. Jul 15, 2010) (quoting Townsel v.
9
County of Contra Costa, 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987)). “In these days of heavy case
10
loads, trial courts . . . set schedules and establish deadlines to foster the efficient treatment
11
and resolution of cases.” Hostnut.Com, Inc. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 2006 WL 1042335,
12
* 1 (D.Ariz. April 19, 2006) (quoting Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052,
13
1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The parties must understand that
14
they will pay a price for failure to comply strictly with scheduling and other orders. . . .” Id.
15
Although the Court does not find good cause for purposes of Rule 6(b)(1)(A),
16
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 authorizes the district court to control its cases “toward a
17
process of judicial management that embraces the entire pretrial phase, especially motions
18
and discovery.” See In re Arizona, 528 F.3d 652, 657 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.
19
16 advisory committee’s note, 1983 Amendment). After consideration of this matter, under-
20
standing the current heavy caseloads in the Attorney General’s Office, the many challenges
21
defending pro se prisoner lawsuits, and the benefits of resolving cases or eliminating issues
22
that may not warrant a trial, the Court will grant a brief extension of the dispositive motion
23
deadline pursuant to its inherent authority to manage its cases. F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v.
24
Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) (recognizing that “all federal
25
courts are vested with inherent powers enabling them to manage their cases and courtrooms
26
effectively and to ensure obedience to their orders.”).
27
Accordingly,
28
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to File Dispositive
-3-
1
Motions for sixty days, doc. 173, is DENIED. Pursuant to the Court’s inherent powers,
2
however, the Court hereby extends the dispositive motion deadline to Friday, December
3
16, 2011. No further extensions will be granted.
4
DATED this 2nd day of December, 2011.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?