Pinson v. Dukett et al

Filing 98

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 94 Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Objection to Request for Admission or to Order the Matter Deemed Admitted is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to file a request to re-file the Motion, in accordance with the provisions of the Court's Scheduling Order. IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's 97 Consent Motion to Extend Deadline for Response is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 7/29/22. (BAC)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Jeremy Pinson,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

United States,

13

No. CV-19-00422-TUC-RM
ORDER

Defendant.

14
15

On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff Jeremy Pinson, through counsel, filed a Motion to

16

Determine Sufficiency of Objection to Request for Admission or to Order the Matter

17

Deemed Admitted. (Doc. 94.) In the Motion, Plaintiff challenges Defendant United

18

States of America’s response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 4. (Id.)

19

On July 26, 2022, Defendant filed a Consent Motion to Extend Deadline for

20

Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Objection to Request for

21

Admission. (Doc. 97.) In the Consent Motion, Defendant states that the parties’ counsel

22

are working to resolve the matters raised in Plaintiff’s Motion, which would eliminate the

23

need for briefing and decision on the Motion. (Id.) Accordingly, Defendant requests,

24

with the consent of Plaintiff’s counsel, that the deadline for responding to the Motion be

25

extended to August 5, 2022. (Id.)

26

The Court’s Scheduling Order prohibits the parties from filing written discovery

27

motions without leave of Court. (Doc. 41 at 2.) In the event of a discovery dispute, the

28

parties must engage in personal consultation in a sincere effort to resolve the conflict

1

expeditiously. (Id.) If a discovery dispute cannot be resolved despite the parties’ sincere

2

efforts, “either party may file a request for a telephonic conference or for permission to

3

file a written discovery motion.” (Id. at 3.) Any such request “must specify the results of

4

the parties’ personal consultation and the matter(s) remaining in dispute.” (Id.)

5

Plaintiff did not obtain leave of Court before filing her Motion to Determine

6

Sufficiency of Objection to Request for Admission. Furthermore, it appears that the

7

Motion was filed prematurely, as further personal consultation between the parties may

8

resolve the matters raised in the Motion without Court intervention.

9

Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice and with

10

leave to file a request to re-file the Motion, in accordance with the provisions of the

11

Court’s Scheduling Order, if the parties are unable to resolve the matters raised in the

12

Motion through further personal consultation. The Court will deny Defendant’s Consent

13

Motion to Extend Deadline as moot.

14

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Objection

15

to Request for Admission or to Order the Matter Deemed Admitted (Doc. 94) is denied

16

without prejudice and with leave to file a request to re-file the Motion, in accordance

17

with the provisions of the Court’s Scheduling Order.

18
19
20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Consent Motion to Extend
Deadline for Response (Doc. 97) is denied as moot.
Dated this 29th day of July, 2022.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-