Collins v. Barber et al
Filing
133
ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 122 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Extend Time to File Dispositive Motions (Doc. 116 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Settlement Conference (Doc. 113 ) is GRANTED, and the case is referred to the Honorable Bruce G. Macdonald for a settlement conference on July 21, 2021 at 9:30. The parties shall comply with directives for the settlement conference issued by Judge Macdonald. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 105 ) this case with CV 21-140-TUC-DCB is DENIED because that case is closed. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 6/4/21. (Associated Cases: 4:19-cv-00174-DCB, 4:21-cv-00140-DCB-PSOT) (MYE)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Jim Collins,
No. CV-19-00174-TUC-DCB
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
ORDER
Beau Barber, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
On February 16, 2021, this case was reassigned to this Court with discovery motions
16
pending and a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiff but not yet fully briefed.
17
Discovery had closed on January 18, 2021, with the discovery motions pending.
18
On March 9, 2021, the Court issued an Order in favor of the Plaintiff, requiring
19
Defendants to respond to certain discovery requests and extending the discovery deadline
20
for this limited purpose. (Order (Doc. 74)). The Court also granted a request from
21
Defendants to extend the dispositive motions deadline and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Motion
22
for Summary Judgment as moot without prejudice to it being reurged subsequent to
23
obtaining the discovery responses from the Defendants. This too favored the Plaintiff to
24
afford him an opportunity to edit his dispositive motion to incorporate any supporting
25
evidence resulting from the allowed discovery. On May 20, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a
26
Motion for Reconsideration of this Order. (Doc. 122.)
27
The Motion for Reconsideration is untimely. Reconsideration must be sought within
28
14 days of the filing date of the Order that is the subject of the requested reconsideration.
1
LRCiv. 7.2(g). The Court, nevertheless, addresses the Plaintiff’s charge that the Court
2
violated his due process by issuing the March 9, 2021, Order without a Response from the
3
Plaintiff to Defendants’ request for extending the dispositive motions deadline. As he
4
recognizes, he did not file his Response (Doc. 76) until March 11, 2021 and filed a
5
supplement (Doc. 78) to show good cause for the late Response on March 12, 2021. The
6
Court had, however, already issued its Order on March 9, 2021. The Plaintiff did not seek
7
timely reconsideration of this Order.
8
The Court has addressed the Plaintiff’s concern that the Court’s March 9, Order,
9
allowed the Defendants to disclose a new defense that probable cause existed for Plaintiff’s
10
arrest and, therefore, he needed to conduct additional discovery relevant to this new
11
defense. As the Court tried to explain when it denied Plaintiff’s last discovery motions,
12
(Order (Doc. 106) at 5), discovery requires disclosure of relevant evidence and facts, not
13
legal theories. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) (requiring disclosure of names and contact
14
information of individuals likely to have discoverable information—that the disclosing
15
party may use to support its claims or defenses). In other words, the Defendant was required
16
to disclose evidence during discovery it intends to use to support a defense raised either on
17
summary judgment or at trial.
18
The Plaintiff asserts that he has been severely prejudiced by the Court’s March 9,
19
2021, Order because he had bargained with Defendants to conduct depositions after the
20
dispositive motions’ deadline. The Court notes such bargains are not allowed because the
21
parties may not agree to extend case management deadlines, which are set by Order of the
22
Court, without Court approval. This information would not have changed the Court’s
23
denial of additional time to conduct depositions beyond the extension it granted in its
24
March 9, 2020, Order. (Doc. 106.)
25
The Plaintiff’s pro se status does not relieve him of complying with the Federal
26
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the U.S. District Court for
27
the District of Arizona (LRCiv.) and orders issued by this Court. Pro se litigants must
28
follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d
-2-
1
565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d
2
896 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Merrill, 746 F.2d 458, 465 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied,
3
469 U.S. 1165, 105 S.Ct. 926, 83 L.Ed.2d 938 (1985).
4
Accordingly,
5
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 122) is DENIED.
6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Extend Time to File Dispositive
7
Motions (Doc. 116) is DENIED.
8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Settlement Conference (Doc.
9
113) is GRANTED, and the case is referred to the Honorable Bruce G. Macdonald for a
10
settlement conference on July 21, 2021 at 9:30. The parties shall comply with directives
11
for the settlement conference issued by Judge Macdonald.
12
13
14
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Consolidate (Doc. 105) this case
with CV 21-140 TUC DCB is DENIED because that case is closed.
Dated this 4th day of June, 2021.
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?