Opinion
No. CIV-03-0009 JB/RLP
March 25, 2004
Timothy P. Woolston Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the Plaintiff
Randy Autio, City of Albuquerque Legal Department Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendant City of Albuquerque
William D. Slease, Jonlyn Martinez, Slease Martinez, P.A. Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendant William Bell
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Defendants' Joint Motion for Extension of Pretrial Deadlines, filed November 26, 2003 (Doc. 22); and (ii) the Defendants' Joint Motion to Vacate Trial Setting and Pretrial Conference, filed February 25, 2004 (Doc 30). The primary issue is whether the Court should extend the pretrial deadlines because the Plaintiff has, to date, not participated in discovery. Because the Court finds that the Defendants need additional time to conduct all necessary discovery, the Court will grant the Motion for Extension of Pretrial Deadlines. In light of the new pretrial deadlines the Court will establish, the Court will dismiss the Motion to Vacate Trial Setting and Pretrial Conference as moot.
BACKGROUND
This matter was initially assigned to the Honorable M. Christina Armijo, United States District Judge. Judge Armijo set a trial date for July 13, 2004. On March 27, 2003, Cruz filed a Motion to Suspend this action because of her diminished capacity that resulted from an automobile accident unrelated to the claims in this lawsuit.See Motion to Suspend Action Based on Plaintiff's Diminished Physical Capacity by an Auto Accident, filed March 27, 2003 (Doc. 8). The Honorable Richard L. Puglisi, United States Magistrate Judge, denied that motion. See Order Denying Motion to Suspend Action Based on Plaintiff's Diminished Physical Capacity by an Auto Accident, filed May 30, 2003 (Doc. 9).
This case was subsequently assigned to Judge Browning. Judge Browning has not changed the trial date.
On September 17, 2003, Bell served on Cruz, by hand delivery to Cruz' counsel, the original and one copy of: (i) Bell's First Interrogatories to Plaintiff; and (ii) Bell's First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff. See Certificate of Service, filed September 17, 2003 (Doc. 17). On that same date, Bell's counsel served a letter on Cruz' counsel in which Bell requested that Cruz provide Bell, as rule 26.3(d) of the local rules of civil procedure requires, with a list of Cruz' care providers for the past five (5) years as well as a medical and psychological release if Cruz was claiming any physical or mental injuries in this matter. Cruz' answers and responses were due on or before October 17, 2003. Having received no response from Cruz, Bell filed his First Motion to Compel on November 3, 2003.
As with the written discovery served on Cruz, she did not respond to the Motion to Compel. See Notice of Completion of Briefing, filed November 24, 2003 (Doc. 21). The Court granted that motion by Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed March 23, 2004 (Doc. 32). To date, the Defendants have not received discovery responses, any medical or psychological releases, or a list of Cruz' care providers.
On October 20, 2003, the City of Albuquerque served the original and one copy of: (i) the City's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff; and (ii) the City's First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff. See Certificate of Service, filed October 20, 2003 (Doc. 18). Cruz' answers and responses were due on or before November 24, 2003. To date, however, Cruz has not answered or responded. The City filed its Motion to Compel to secure Cruz' compliance with her discovery obligations on December 15, 2003. Cruz did not respond to the City's Motion to Compel. See Notice of Completion of Briefing, filed January 8, 2004 (Doc. 26). By order dated March 23, 2004, the Court granted the City's Motion to Compel. See Order, filed March 23, 2004 (Doc. 34).
Discovery terminated on December 8, 2003. Further, the deadline for dispositive motions was January 22, 2004. The Defendants, the City of Albuquerque and William Bell, move the Court for an extension of the pretrial deadlines in this matter. In their motion, the Defendants requested specific deadlines to replace the original deadlines. Those suggested deadlines, however, have passed.
ANALYSIS
It is unclear whether Cruz' diminished capacity is preventing her from participating in discovery or whether she is disregarding her obligation to do. Regardless, the Defendants have been unable to obtain information from Cruz as to her claims or her alleged damages. Further, absent the information that the Defendants have sought by way of their written discovery to Cruz, the Defendants are handicapped in setting her deposition so that they can refine and further explore her claims and alleged damages. The Defendants' inability to obtain discovery from Cruz has prejudiced the Defendants in preparing their defenses in this matter.
In light of the delay caused by Cruz' failure to participate in discovery, the Defendants need additional time to conduct all necessary discovery. The Defendants have requested that the Court place this case on a 90 day track. Accordingly, the Court will establish new pretrial deadlines as follows, which will be incorporated into a separate Notice: (i) Defendants' deadline to disclose expert witnesses — May 3, 2004; (ii) Discovery ends — June 23, 2004; (iii) Discovery motions due — July 6, 2004; (iv) Dispositive motions due — July 28, 2004; (v) Pretrial Order due from the Plaintiff to the Defendants — August 6, 2004; and (vi) Pretrial Order due from the Defendants to the Court on August 13, 2004. The Plaintiff's deadline to disclose expert witnesses has passed. The Court will schedule the jury selection and jury trial for September 7, 2004 (trailing docket), with a Pretrial Conference on August 16, 2004 at 4:00 p.m.
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants' Joint Motion for Extension of Pretrial Deadlines is granted. All pretrial deadlines are extended as described herein. The Defendants' Joint Motion to Vacate Trial Setting and Pretrial Conference is therefore moot, and the Court will dismiss it.