Donahoe et al v. Arpaio et al

Filing 456

ORDER: The parties should prepare to discuss at the 06/01/12 case scheduling conference: 1) Concluding fact discovery by 12/14/12. 2) What expert testimony is contemplated, why it is necessary, and why expert disclosures and discovery cannot be done by the close of fact discovery. 3) Why good faith settlement meetings as to individual cases and with assistance of mediators cannot be done by 08/31/12, by which time the depositions of the parties should be completed. 4) Why the Wolfswinkel case should not be set on a separate schedule with early anticipated trial date. 5) All other matters. See order for details. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 5/30/12. (NKS)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Gary Donahoe and
husband and wife,

10

Cherie

Donahoe,

No. CV 10-02756-PHX-NVW
CONSOLIDATED WITH:

Plaintiffs,

11

vs.

12

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio,
husband and wife; Andrew Thomas and
Anne Thomas, husband and wife; Lisa
Aubuchon and Peter R. Pestalozzi, wife and
husband; Deputy Chief David Hendershott
and Anna Hendershott, husband and wife;
Peter Spaw and Jane Doe Spaw, husband
and wife; Maricopa County, a municipal
entity; Jon Does I-X; Jane Does I-X; Black
Corporations I-V; and White Partnerships IV,

13
14
15
16
17
18

Defendants.

19
20

Sandra Wilson and Paul Wilson, husband
and wife,

21

CV 10-02758-PHX-NVW

Plaintiffs,

22

vs.

23

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio,
husband and wife; et al.,

24
25

Defendants.

26
27
28
-1 

1
2
3
4
5
6

Conley D. Wolfswinkel, a single man;
Brandon D. Wolswinkel, a single man;
Ashton A. Wolfswinkel, a single man;
Vanderbilt Farms, LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company; ABCDW, LLC, an
Arizona limited liability company; Stone
Canyon, LLC, an Arizona limited liability
company; Vistoso Partners, LLC, an
Arizona limited liability company; and W
Harquahala, LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company;

7
8
9
10

Plaintiffs,
vs.
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio,
husband and wife; et al.,
Defendants.

11
12
13

Mary Rose Wilcox and Earl Wilcox, wife
and husband,

16
17
18

vs.
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio,
husband and wife; et al.,
Defendants.
Donald T. Stapley, Jr. and Kathleen
Stapley, husband and wife,

19
20
21
22
23

CV 11-00473-PHX-NVW

Plaintiffs,

14
15

CV 11-00116-PHX-NVW

CV 11-00902-PHX-NVW

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

vs.
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio,
husband and wife; et al.,
Defendants.

24

The proposed schedule in the Rule 56(f) Proposed Discovery Plan (Doc. 449) is

25

rejected. It does not comply with the Civil Justice Reform Act, which requires civil

26

actions to be concluded within three years of filing. Even apart from the Civil Justice

27

Reform Act, the proposed schedule is unquestionably overlong. Extensive information is

28
-2 

1

already available publicly. If not already in hand, almost all documentary discovery can

2

be produced in little more than a month. The 120 depositions sought is excessive. In any

3

event, depositions can be planned in groups in advance and concluded in far less time

4

than proposed. Only a single round of dispositive motions, not multiple rounds, will be

5

permitted. No further amended pleadings will be allowed without meeting all the criteria

6

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, especially timeliness, lack of prejudice to opposing parties, and lack

7

of delay of the proceedings.

8
9

IT IS ORDERED that the parties should prepare to discuss at the June 1, 2012
case scheduling conference:

10

 Concluding fact discovery by December 14, 2012.

11

 What expert testimony is contemplated, why it is necessary, and why expert

12

disclosures and discovery cannot be done by the close of fact discovery.

13

 Why good faith settlement meetings as to individual cases and with

14

assistance of mediators cannot be done by August 31, 2012, by which time

15

the depositions of the parties should be completed.

16
17
18
19

 Why the Wolfswinkel case should not be set on a separate schedule with
early anticipated trial date.
 All other matters.
Dated this 30th day of May, 2012.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3