Brandon et al v. Liddy et al
Filing
97
ORDER denying 91 Motion for Extension of the Discovery Deadline FURTHER ORDERED granting 92 Motion for In Camera Inspection, denying 92 Motion to Set Aside Order Compelling Disclosure FURTHER ORDERED denying 93 Motion to Seal Exhibit B. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 7/11/13.(MAP)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Maria Brandon, et al.,
10
Plaintiffs,
11
vs.
12
Tom Liddy, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-12-788-PHX-FJM
ORDER
15
16
17
I
18
Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to extend discovery deadline (doc. 91), and
19
defendants’ response (doc. 96). The parties’ discovery deadline is July 12, 2013. See R16
20
Scheduling Order (doc. 48). On June 19, 2013, we granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel
21
disclosure of executive session meeting minutes (doc. 86). Plaintiffs now seek a 60-day
22
extension of the discovery deadline, asserting that, “in light of the Court’s recent order,” they
23
now need to conduct another 10 depositions. Motion at 2.
24
A Rule 16 schedule will be modified only for good cause shown. Fed. R. Civ. P.
25
16(b)(4). Discovery in this case has been proceeding for well over a year. Yet, the motion
26
to compel was filed just one month before the discovery deadline. This discovery dispute
27
should have been resolved well before the discovery deadline. Moreover, the motion to
28
compel was granted on June 19, 2013, leaving plaintiffs 3 weeks before the deadline to
1
address the limited issues raised by the motion. Diligence is the hallmark of good cause.
2
Plaintiffs make no showing to explain their last minute discovery efforts. Nor do they give
3
any explanation why the order compelling disclosure of meeting minutes requires another
4
10 depositions and a 60-day extension.
5
6
Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of the discovery deadline is denied for failure to show
good cause (doc. 91).
7
II
8
We also have before us defendants’ motion to set aside order and request for in
9
camera review (doc. 92), and motion to seal exhibit B (doc. 93). Defendants assert that in
10
complying with our order compelling the disclosure of executive meeting minutes they
11
discovered that one minute entry that satisfies the court order is protected by the attorney-
12
client privilege.
13
We grant the request for in camera inspection (doc. 92). We deny, however, the
14
motion to set aside our order compelling disclosure (doc. 92) and we deny the motion to seal
15
exhibit B (doc. 93). Defendants state only that “the statement made in the executive session
16
was made by the MCBOS’s attorney to the MCBOS.” Motion at 2. The simple fact that a
17
lawyer made a statement to his client is insufficient to support a claim for attorney-client
18
privilege. There is no showing that the statement in question was made for the purpose of
19
providing legal advice. Rather, it appears as if the statement was made in the context of the
20
lawyer’s role as a business advisor.
21
establishing the privileged nature of the statement. Defendants’ motions to set aside order
22
to compel (doc. 92) and to seal exhibit B (doc. 93) are denied.
Defendants have not satisfied their burden of
23
Although defendants include the October 4, 2010 meeting minutes in their lodged
24
sealed exhibit B, no argument is made, nor does our in camera review indicate, that these
25
minutes are privileged.
26
27
28
IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs’ motion for extension of the discovery
deadline (doc. 91).
IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ motion for in camera inspection (doc.
-2-
1
92), DENYING defendants’ motion to set aside order compelling disclosure (doc. 92), and
2
DENYING defendants’ motion to seal exhibit B (doc. 93).
3
DATED this 11th day of July, 2013.
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
-3-
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?