United States District Court, D. Arizona
A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge
in this case closed on January 25, 2019. After the close of
business on the day discovery closed, Defendant filed a
motion for the issuance of letters rogatory to allow
Defendant to depose a witness (“Deponent”) in
Mexico. (Doc. 120). Defendant also asked that it be allowed
to “pursue this limited letter rogatory discovery after
the close of discovery on January 25, 2019.”
(Id. at 120). Plaintiff does not oppose this
applies to pretrial conferences and scheduling orders. This
Rule provides, in pertinent part:
(1) Except in categories of actions exempted by local rule,
the district judge . . . must issue a scheduling order:
(A) after receiving the parties' report under Rule 26(f);
(B) after consulting with the parties' attorneys and any
unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference or by
telephone, mail, or other means.
. . . .
(A) The scheduling order must limit the time to join other
parties, amend the pleadings, complete discovery, and file
. . . .
schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the
16(b)'s ‘good cause' standard primarily
considers the diligence of the party seeking the
amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,
Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Generally, to
meet its burden under Rule ...