Huminski v. Heretia et al

Filing 108

ORDER On or before 02/10/12, Plaintiff Scott Huminski shall file a response to Defendants' 95 motion for summary judgment and, if he chooses, a cross-motion for summary judgment. On or before 02/27/12, Defendants shall file a response to Plain tiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment, as a single document. On or before 03/07/12, Plaintiff shall file a reply in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's 100 Motion to Strike Summary Judgment Motion is denied. The 103 Motion for Disqualification of Hon. Judge Campbell is denied. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 01/19/12. (see attached pdf for complete details) (ESL)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

No. CV11-0896 PHX DGC

Scott Huminski,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

ORDER

Hector Heretia, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

The Court held a discovery conference call with the parties on January 18, 2012.

15

The conference call was held on the record. This order will reflect matters decided

16

during the conference call and thereafter.

17

1.

On or before February 10, 2012, Plaintiff Scott Huminski shall file a

18

response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 95) and, if he chooses, a

19

cross-motion for summary judgment. On or before February 27, 2012, Defendants shall

20

file a response to Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment and a reply in support of

21

their motion for summary judgment, as a single document. On or before March 7, 2012,

22

Plaintiff shall file a reply in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment.

23

2.

Discovery shall be suspended until the Court rules on the motions for

24

summary judgment. No party shall engage in discovery during this time period. If the

25

Court’s ruling does not finally resolve this case, the Court will set a case management

26

conference to discuss completion of discovery in preparation for trial.

27
28

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Summary Judgment Motion (Doc. 100) is

denied. The Court and the parties decided in the January 18, 2012 conference call that

1

completing summary judgment briefing was the most efficient way to seek a final

2

resolution of this case.

3

4.

The Motion for Disqualification of Hon. Judge Campbell (Doc. 103) is

4

denied. The motion asserts that the Court’s Judicial Assistant (“JA”) has become a fact

5

witness in this case because she received an inquiry from Phoenix School of Law as to

6

whether an evidentiary hearing would be held on January 18, 2012. The Court does not

7

agree that its JA is a fact witness. Her communications with counsel for the Phoenix

8

School of Law concerned the scheduling of hearings. The motion also asserts that the

9

Court’s JA violated the scheduling order in this case. In fact, the Court’s JA is under

10

instruction to schedule telephone hearings in all discovery disputes. The Court routinely

11

denies written discovery motions because its case management order (¶ 6) requires that

12

such matters be addressed in telephone conferences with the Court. The Court’s pursuit

13

of this policy does not constitute a basis for disqualification.

14

Dated this 19th day of January, 2012.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
‐ 2 ‐