Free Motion to Continue - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Robert M. Frisbee #018779 FRISBEE & BOSTOCK, PLC 2 1747 East Morten Avenue, Suite 108 Phoenix, Arizona 85020 3 Phone: (602) 354-3689 Fax: (602) 266-7744 4 [email protected] Attorneys for Greg and Linda Hancock
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Meritage Homes Corporation, a Maryland Corporation, formerly d/b/a Meritage Corporation; Hancock-MTH Builders, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Hancock-MTH Communities, Inc., an Arizona corporation d/b/a/ Meritage Homes Construction, Inc.; and Meritage Homes of Arizona, Inc., an Arizona Corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ricky Lee Hancock and Brenda ) Hancock, husband and wife; Gregory ) S. Hancock and Linda Hancock, ) husband and wife; Rick Hancock Homes ) LLC, an Arizona limited liability ) company; RLH Development, LLC, an ) Arizona limited liability company; and ) J2H2, LLC, an Arizona limited ) liability company, ) Defendants, ) and ) ) Greg Hancock, an individual, ) ) Defendant, Counter) Claimant and Third) Party Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) Steven J. Hilton, an individual; John R. ) Landon, in individual; Larry W. Seay, ) an individual; and Snell & Wilmer, LLP, ) an Arizona professional ) corporation, ) Third-Party Defendants. ) )
Document 271

Case No. CV-04-0384-PHX-ROS

MOTION TO DEFER EFFECTIVE DATE OF DISCOVERY ORDER

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Defendant Greg Hancock, through undersigned counsel, hereby moves the Court to defer the date for compliance with its Discovery Order dated January 18, 2006. Said Motion is made for the reason that this Defendant and his counsel are unable to comply timely with that order for the reasons expressed in the attached Memorandum. MEMORANDUM On January 18, 2006, the Court ordered defendant Greg Hancock and his counsel to produce records belonging to other clients of the firm of Titus, Bruekner & Berry, P.C. ("Titus") by February 19, 2006. Upon his receipt of said Order, undersigned counsel notified Titus thereof and sought input as to how he could comply with the order. Titus informed counsel that the firm would be retaining its own counsel to address the issue. Soon thereafter it was made known that Kurt M. Zitzer, Esq., of the Meagher Geer firm would be representing Titus. Counsel contacted Mr. Zitzer about the matter and was informed that he and Mr. Goldfine would soon be receiving a letter regarding the matter. Counsel asked Mr. Zitzer to move to stay the order, but was informed that Mr. Zitzer would no do so under the circumstances, i.e. that Titus is a third-party non-litigant not now subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. On January 31, 2006, counsel received Mr. Zitzer's letter, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. On Friday, February 3, 2006, counsel discussed the Zitzer letter with Mr. Goldfine. Mr. Goldfine said that he would be issuing a subpoena to the Titus firm for such records as he still wanted. He did not state when that would be accomplished or what records he sought. As is evident from the Zitzer letter, Titus intends to assert such defenses to the subpoena as are available to it, such as privacy and privilege, and if necessary to bring a motion for a protective order and to seek all of the relief available to his client under Rule 45 (c).
2 Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 271 Filed 02/08/2006 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

It is obvious that the foregoing problems are unlikely to be solved by the deadline of February 19, 2006, and that the issues that may arise will be between Mr. Goldfine and Mr. Zitzer, and within their control. Should motions be brought by Zitzer after receipt of the subpoena just the timing of the briefs would extend the matter well beyond February 19. For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned requests the date of February 19, 2006, for compliance with the Order be extended at least ninety (90) days so that Mr. Zitzer and Mr. Goldfine can either resolve the issues or seek the intervention of the Court. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 8th day February, 2006.

/s/ Robert M. Frisbee Attorney for Greg & Linda Hancock VERIFICATION

Robert M. Frisbee hereby attests, subject to the Rules of Civil Procedure and under penalty of possible sanctions, that the statements made and the information contained in the 14 foregoing Motion are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
15 16 17

/s/ Robert M. Frisbee

The foregoing Motion was electronically filed this 8th day of February, 2006, and copy 19 thereof mailed to the Honorable Judge Silver.
18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 271 Filed 02/08/2006 Page 3 of 3

/s/