Free Order on Motion for Hearing - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

SRM

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 27 28 Andre Almond Dennison, Plaintiff -vsConrad Luna, et al., Defendant(s) CV-03-2373-PHX-SRB (JI) ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Under consideration is Plaintiff's Motion for Telephonic Discovery Conference, filed August 3, 2005 (#79). Plaintiff represents that he has personally consulted with counsel for Defendants in an attempt to resolve outstanding discovery disputes. Plaintiff has listed disputes concerning various requests for production of documents, requests for admissions, and various interrogatories. Defendants assert in their Response (#82) that they have either already produced all available documents, or that the unproduced documents are not properly requested. Plaintiff's argues in his Reply (#86) that the objections listed in Defendants' response establish the unreconciled discovery dispute justifying a telephonic discovery conference. It appears that there are discovery disputes as yet unresolved. The Court will set a telephonic discovery conference. MOTION TO COMPEL Also under consideration is Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Sign Medial Authorization, filed August 12, 2005 (#83). Defendants seek an order compelling Plaintiff to sign and return medical authorizations previously sent to him. Defendants have apparently corresponded with Plaintiff in writing in the initial request, but make no representations that they have conferred with Plaintiff. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(2)(A) requires that
Case 2:03-cv-02373-SRB Document 91 - 1Filed 09/14/2005 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 27 28

the parties have first "conferred or attempted to confer" on the dispute. Moreover, Defendants have not sought a discovery conference with the Court on this issue prior to filing their motion as required by the Court's scheduling order. Plaintiff raised these issues in his Response (#85), and Defendants have not replied. Defendants have apparently made no effort beyond the original request to resolve the matter. Defense counsel simply asserts that the original request was "self-evident, and not open to interpretation, [and] I in good faith believe that it would be fruitless to repeatedly send additional medical authorization release forms." (Motion, #83 at Cert. of Jue at ¶ 3.) Sending repeated requests may not be fruitful, but that is not what is required by Rule 37(a)(2)(A) or the Court's scheduling order for presentation of a motion to compel. The motion will be denied. MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY MOTION DEADLINE Finally, under consideration is Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time, filed August 16, 2005 but apparently mailed August 12, 2005 (#86), seeking a 30 day enlargement of the August 12, 2005 discovery and disclosure motions deadline, citing the foregoing ongoing discovery disputes. Defendants have not responded.. The Court finds good cause for the extension.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Telephonic Discovery Conference, filed August 3, 2005 (#79) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties participate in a telephonic conference with the Court on: Wednesday, October 5, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. Counsel for Defendants shall be responsible for arranging and initiating the conference call.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Sign Medical Authorization, filed August 12, 2005 (#83) is DENIED.
Case 2:03-cv-02373-SRB Document 91 - 2Filed 09/14/2005 Page 2 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 27 28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time, filed August 16, 2005 (#86) is GRANTED. The parties shall have thirty days from the filing of this Order to file discovery or disclosure motions.

DATED: September 13, 2005
S:\Drafts\OutBox\03-2373-79o Order 05 09 09 re MDiscConf MCompel MExtend.wpd

_____________________________________ JAY R. IRWIN United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02373-SRB

Document 91 - 3Filed 09/14/2005 -

Page 3 of 3