United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Dominic W. Lanza United Slates District Judge
Pending
before the Court are Plaintiff's “Brief Regarding
Rule 26(f) Discovery Dispute” (Doc. 40) and Defendant
Reagan's Response (Doc. 41). In a nutshell, Plaintiff
contends that he has attempted to meet and confer with
Defendants for the purpose of preparing a joint Rule 26(f)
report but Defendants have refused to engage in any
meet-and-confer efforts. (Doc. 40 at 1-2.) Plaintiff further
argues that (1) although Defendants have filed motions to
dismiss, pending motions don't automatically result in a
stay of the case, and (2) by refusing to meet and confer,
Defendants violated an earlier order in this case, which
specifically provided that “[o]utstanding motions . . .
will not excuse the requirement to hold a Rule 26(f)
conference or submit the joint filing.” (Id.
at 2.)
As
explained below, although the Court is sympathetic to
Plaintiff's desire to litigate this case expeditiously
and appreciates Plaintiff's diligence in attempting to
comply with the federal rules, the requested relief will be
denied. As background, Rule 26(f) provides, in relevant part,
that “[e]xcept . . . when the court orders otherwise,
the parties must confer as soon as practicable-and in any
event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to
be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b).”
Rule 16(b) provides, in relevant part, that the district
judge “must issue [a] scheduling order as soon as
practicable, but unless the judge finds good cause for delay,
the judge must issue it within the earlier of 90 days after
any defendant has been served with the complaint or 60 days
after any defendant has appeared.” Here, all Defendants
were served on November 2, 2018. The ninetieth day after that
date is January 31, 2019. Also, Defendant Reagan filed a
notice of appearance on November 5, 2018. The sixtieth day
after that date is January 2, 2019. Thus, the parties were
required to confer at least 21 days before January 2,
2019-that is, by December 12, 2018.
Nevertheless,
these deadlines can be extended for “good cause,
” and courts have concluded that the existence of a
pending motion to dismiss can qualify as good cause.
Jones v. iPawn Rodney Parham, LLC, 2017 WL 6945575,
*2 (E.D. Ark. 2017) (“At this juncture in the
litigation, defendants have been served, but no defendant
filed an answer. Instead, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss. The Court found that to be good cause to hold the
issuance of an initial scheduling order.”). Here,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on November 27 and 30,
2018. (Docs. 32, 33.)[1] Both motions recently became fully briefed
and will be ruled upon in due course. The Court concludes the
existence of these pending motions constitutes good cause to
delay the issuance of the scheduling order and the Rule 26(f)
process. Additionally, Defendants have also filed a motion to
deem this a “related case” and transfer it to a
different judge. (Doc. 20.) The existence of that motion,
which is currently pending before the proposed transferee
judge, provides further good cause to delay the Rule 16 and
Rule 26 deadlines.
Finally,
Plaintiff is incorrect in his assertion that
“Defendants['] refusal to engage in a Rule 26(f)
conference . . . violates an order from this Court.”
(Doc. 40 at 2.) In support of this claim, Plaintiff cites the
Court's standard preliminary order, which provides that
“[outstanding motions or requests to continue the
conference will not excuse the requirement to hold a Rule
26(f) meeting or submit the joint filing.” (Doc. 29 at
2.) The cited language, however, appears in a paragraph
setting forth the parties' obligations after the
Court schedules the Rule 16 case management conference. The
Court hasn't set a date for the Rule 16 conference yet
(because Defendants haven't answered), so the
parties' obligations under that particular paragraph
haven't arisen.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs request
(Doc. 40) for a telephonic conference with the Court
regarding Defendants' refusal to participate in a Rule
26(f) conference.
---------
Notes:
[1] The Court further notes that
Defendants' obligation to provide disclosures under the
District of Arizona's Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot
Project (“MIDP”) has not yet arisen. Under the
MIDP, these disclosure obligations arise once the defendant
has filed an answer. (Doc. 31 at 5.) Here, Defendants
haven't answered yet. Nor are their answers overdue. This
is because they filed their motions to dismiss (Docs. 32, 33)
before the deadline to file their answers (Doc. 24) expired.
Although a previous iteration of MIDP order stated that
“Parties must file answers, counterclaims, crossclaims,
and replies within the time set forth in Rule 12(a)(1)-(3)
even if they have filed or intend to file a motion to
dismiss or other preliminary motion” (Doc. 4 at 5,
emphasis added), the current version of the MIDP order-which
was issued on November 1, 2018-doesn't include this
italicized language. Now, the order provides that
“Parties must file answers, counterclaims, crossclaims,
and replies within the ...