Yazzie v. Fezatte et al
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lourdes A. Martinez GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 50 Joint Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines. (atc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
No. CIV-16-0472 RJ/LAM
SETH FEZATTE and
WERNER ENTERPRISES, Inc.,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
SECOND JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ second joint motion to extend the
scheduling order deadlines in this case [Doc. 50], filed on March 31, 2017. Having considered
the motion and record of the case, the Court FINDS that the motion shall be GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part.
In their motion, the parties ask the Court to extend their scheduling order deadlines by an
additional thirty days.
See [Doc. 50 at 1].
The parties state that, since the Court’s
February 22, 2017 order extending the deadlines in this case by thirty days, the parties have
completed the depositions of Defendant Fezatte and of Defendant Werner Enterprises’
Rule 30(b)(6) witness. See id. at 2. However, the parties state that they are waiting for the
certified transcripts of those depositions, and that Plaintiff’s experts need those transcripts for
their reports. See id. at 2-3. The parties also state they are working on setting the depositions of
the investigating police officers, who are from Arizona and New Mexico, and that these
depositions are also necessary for the parties’ expert reports. See id. at 3. Therefore, the parties
ask the Court to extend all of the current deadlines in this case by an additional thirty days. See
id. In the alternative, the parties ask the Court to certify this case as complex and to extend the
case deadlines for that reason. See id. at 3-4. The parties state that this case is complex because
it involves police officers from two states, there are newly discovered issues regarding Defendant
Fezatte’s vision, and Plaintiff has extensive injuries and numerous medical records. See id.
On February 22, 2017, the parties filed an unopposed motion asking for a ninety-day
extension of the deadlines in this case. See [Doc. 47]. In considering that motion, the Court
explained that this case was set on a 180-day track, which is the longest track available for a
standard, non-complex, case. See [Doc. 48 at 1] (citing Doc. 38, Clerk’s Minutes from the
November 2, 2016 Rule 16 initial scheduling conference). The Court denied the parties’ request
for a ninety-day extension, and, instead, extended the deadlines by thirty days, and instructed the
parties to “immediately set all necessary depositions and move the currently-scheduled
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to an earlier date” in order to be able to proceed with the parties’ expert
reports. Id. at 2. The Court is not persuaded that the parties have diligently followed the Court’s
instructions, and notes that the parties can order expedited transcripts of the depositions that are
needed for their expert reports. In addition, the Court does not agree that this case is complex.
All diversity cases involve parties from other states, and the parties have not shown that this case
is any more complex than most cases on the Court’s docket. For these reasons, the Court will
grant the parties’ motion for a thirty-day extension of time, but will not grant any further
requests for extensions in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ second joint motion to extend the
scheduling order deadlines in this case [Doc. 50] is GRANTED in part, and the parties’
deadlines are extended as follows:
Plaintiff’s expert disclosures:
May 3, 2017
Defendants’ expert disclosures:
June 5, 2017
July 3, 2017
Discovery motions deadline:
July 24, 2017
Pretrial motions deadline:
August 14, 2017
Pretrial order: Plaintiff to Defendants:
October 2, 2017
Pretrial order: Defendants to Court:
October 16, 2017
These deadlines shall not be extended again.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LOURDES A. MARTÍNEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?