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)

Download PDF
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?