United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Eileen
S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge.
The
Court addresses a number of pending Motions (Docs. 334, 339,
342, 346-51) in this Order.
The
Court has reviewed Plaintiff's “Motion to Strike
Defendants Hughes and Jacobs Motion to Dismiss” (Doc.
334). Defendants Hughes and Jacobs are represented by an
Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”). On
December 26, 2018, the AUSA moved for an Order staying the
case due to the Federal Government shutdown. (Doc. 292). The
Court granted the request. (Doc. 308 at 6). The Court lifted
the stay on March 6, 2019. (Doc. 343 at 4). In his pending
Motion (Doc. 334), Plaintiff contends.:
Defendants Hughes and Jacobs' Motion to Dismiss, (Doc.
331), filed on February 15, 2019, is untimely filed based
upon this Court's Order of January 18, 2019, granting
Defendant's Motion for Stay (Doc. 308 at pg. 6) is null
and void; and thus Defendants had no valid Court Order in
effect granting them any stay to file a (d)elayed [sic]
response to Plaintiff's operative complaint.
(Doc. 334 at 5). The Court found that there was good cause to
grant Defendants Hughes and Jacobs' Motion to Stay. (Doc.
308 at 6). The Court clarifies the dates of the stay as
follows: The stay commenced on December 26, 2018, the date
Defendants Hughes and Jacobs filed their Motion (Doc. 292).
The stay continued until the stay was lifted on March 6, 2019
(Doc. 343). Defendants Hughes and Jacobs' Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 331) is timely. The Court will deny
Plaintiff's “Motion to Strike Defendants Hughes and
Jacobs Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. 334).
For
good cause shown, the Court will grant Plaintiff's
unopposed “Motion Requesting a 45-day Extension to
Respond to B. Jacobs and M. Hughes's Motion to Dismiss
(‘dkt. 331') (‘First Request')”
(Doc. 346). Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants Hughes and
Jacobs' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 331) no later than
May 2, 2019. The Court will also grant
Plaintiff's unopposed “Motion Requesting a 45-day
Extension to Respond to Allen and Garcia's Motion for
Summary Judgment (‘First Request')” (Doc.
351). Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants Allen and
Garcia's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 337) no later
than May 20, 2019.
The
Court also has reviewed Plaintiff's “First Motion
to Extend Discovery Deadline as to Defendants Hughes and
Jacobs Due to Federal Government Shutdown . . .” (Doc.
339). The Court will deny Motion (Doc. 339) as moot. If the
Court denies Defendants Hughes and Jacobs' Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 331), the Court will set deadlines for
discovery and dispositive motions as those Defendants Hughes
and Jacobs.
Next,
the Court has considered Defendants Allen and Garcia's
“Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline for
Motion for Summary Judgment on the Merits” (Doc. 342).
No. response has been filed and the time to do so has passed.
See LRCiv 7.2(i). For good cause shown, the Court
will grant the Motion (Doc. 342).
Finally,
the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motions to Strike
(Docs. 347, 349, 350) and “Motion for Court Order to
Issue Subpoena Duces Tecum” (Doc. 348). Because the
Court does not find good cause to grant the Motions (Docs.
347-50), they will be denied.
Based
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED denying
Plaintiff's “Motion to Strike Defendants Hughes and
Jacobs Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. 334).
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED clarifying that this matter was
stayed as to Defendants Hughes and Jacobs beginning on
December 26, 2018 through and including March 6, 2019.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED deeming Defendants Hughes and
Jacobs' February 15, 2019 Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 331)
timely filed.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff's
“First Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline as to
Defendants Hughes and Jacobs Due to Federal Government
Shutdown . . .” (Doc. 339).
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants Allen and
Garcia's “Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion
Deadline for Motion for Summary Judgment on the Merits”
(Doc. 342). Defendants Allen and Garcia's Motion for
Summary Judgment on the merits shall be filed no later than
forty-five days from the date the Court rules on Defendants
Allen and Garcia's Motion for ...