Opinion
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 9 This Order Pertains to the Following Related Cases: CV 04-00172-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00175-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00178-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00182-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00185-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00193-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00501-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00504-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00507-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00510-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00665-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00806-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00809-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00812-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00815-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00818-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00821-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00829-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00832-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00835-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00838-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00842-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00849-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00173-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00176-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00179-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00183-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00191-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00195-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00502-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00505-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00508-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00511-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00804-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00807-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00810-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00813-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00816-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00819-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00822-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00830-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00833-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00836-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00839-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00843-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00850-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00174-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00177-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00180-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00184-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00192-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00196-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00503-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00506-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00509-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00664-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00805-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00808-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00811-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00814-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00817-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00820-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00828-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00831-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00834-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00837-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00840-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00844-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00851-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00852-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00856-PHX (HRH); CV 04-01106-PHX (HRH); CV 04-01898-PHX (HRH); CV 04-02412-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00853-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00857-PHX (HRH); CV 04-01107-PHX (HRH); CV 04-01899-PHX (HRH); CV 04-00854-PHX (HRH); CV 04-01041-PHX (HRH); CV 04-01374-PHX (HRH); CV 04-02040-PHX (HRH); [and] CV 04-00181-PCT (HRH); CV 04-00845-PCT (HRH); CV 04-01157-PCT (HRH); CV 04-00194-PCT (HRH); CV 04-00846-PCT (HRH); CV 04-00841-PCT (HRH); CV 04-00847-PCT (HRH); [and] CV 04-00043-TUC (HRH); CV 04-00046-TUC (HRH); CV 04-00203-TUC (HRH); CV 04-00206-TUC (HRH); CV 04-00044-TUC (HRH); CV 04-00153-TUC (HRH); CV 04-00204-TUC (HRH); CV 04-00207-TUC (HRH) CV 04-00045-TUC (HRH); CV 04-00202-TUC (HRH); CV 04-00205-TUC (HRH);
December 14, 2004
ORDER
Case Management Order for All Cases and Calendar for 2004 Cases Introduction
By Case Management Order No. 8, the court called upon plaintiff and defendants to provide the court with information for use in constructing a scheduling and planning order for the jointly managed cases (JMC). The court has received and reviewed the report received from plaintiff as well as reports from some, but by no means all, of the defendants.
CMO-8 was filed on or about November 9, 2004, in the 2004 cases, and has been served upon defendants in the 2004 DirecTV cases who had appeared or answered as of the latter date. Responses were to be filed and mailed on or before December 3, 2004.
There has not emerged from the initial planning process any useful substantive basis for classifying or grouping the JMC. Procedurally, the 2004 cases are ready to go forward. The planning needs of all of the 2004 JMC are relatively clear. This Case Management Order No. 9 (CMO-9) shall serve as the planning document for and contains a calendar for the 2004 cases. As additional defendants appear or answer in the JMC, plaintiff shall cause a copy of this CMO-9 to be served upon such defendants.
The court has heretofore given serious consideration to (and one or more defendants have suggested) a separate group for defendants who claim that they have been mistaken for someone else. The court's review of the defendants' answers leads the court to believe that creating such a discrete class or subclass would not be helpful. Defining such a subclass would likely lead to unhelpful disagreements about who is and who is not fairly within an "I didn't do it" class. Plaintiff heretofore suggested that defendants might be grouped on the basis of the equipment purveyor that each defendant is alleged to have dealt with in acquiring devices that might intercept and unscramble DirecTV signals. The foregoing concept (and possibly others) will surely prove useful to the plaintiff in undertaking discovery and may be useful in motion practice. However, the court does not perceive that a subgrouping for general case management purposes based upon the identity of an equipment purveyor would have any useful, overall effect.
I. Planning and Management Concepts A. General Case Management
(1) Unless and until otherwise ordered by the court, all of the above-numbered cases (the JMC) as well as any subsequently filed, related cases will be managed by the court as a group, but are not consolidated pursuant to this CMO-9.
(2) Judge Holland of the District of Alaska has been designated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to the District of Arizona for purposes of managing the JMC. The JMC remain pending in the District of Arizona. Case management and decision-making will be carried on from chambers in Alaska. Trials will be scheduled in the District of Arizona.
(3) Judge Holland does not have easy access to the original case files of the clerk of court and must therefore construct a chambers file for each of the JMC. Each party shall be responsible for providing chambers in Anchorage with copies of documents generated and filed with the court in Arizona by the party.
See Paragraph I.D, pages 7-8 herein.
(4) Communications with the court, except as to routine administrative matters, shall be in writing in an appropriate pleading, served upon the opposing party and Judge Holland, and filed with the court in Arizona. Parties should not communicate with the court by letter and shall not copy the court with correspondence exchanged between counsel. Facsimile transmission of documents to Judge Holland is discouraged and shall be accepted only when prearranged with chambers based upon a clear need for expedited delivery.
Prior authorization for each transmission is required.
(5) The court has set up a DirecTV site on the Arizona District Court internet page by which the court may informally advise parties of recent developments in the JMC, i.e., the entry of an order on some subject.
Counsel may access the internet web page for the District Court of Arizona at http://www.azd.uscourts.gov, then accessing " Cases of Interest" for the DirecTV listing.
(6) In this CMO-9, the court has set compliance dates for the2004 JMC. The court has endeavored to provide a reasonable amount of time within which parties are to act or respond. In order that the JMC may proceed smoothly and expeditiously, it is absolutely necessary that priority attention be given to obligations in the JMC. Not returning telephone calls or "I'm busy with something else" will not be tolerated. Except where the court has expressly stated otherwise, parties are at liberty to stipulate for an extension of time so long as such extension of time does not adversely impact other obligations on some party in this case and so long as the extension of time is brief and reasonable. A stipulation for an extension of more than seven calendar days in duration shall state the reason for the stipulation, and multiple extensions of the same obligation will, except for compelling circumstances, be rejected.
B. Organization of Defense Counsel
The court continues to believe that this case will proceed more efficiently and economically if there is some organization amongst defense counsel. However, defense counsel have shown little interest in this proposition.
Because these cases are quite fact-specific for each defendant, the court is disinclined to force organization upon defense counsel except in limited areas to be discussed hereinafter and including motion practice and some aspects of discovery.
C. Statement of Issues
The court continues to believe that the issues raised in the JMC are presented in a straightforward fashion by the complaints.Several issues affecting some or all of the JMC have been resolved in the 2003 JMC for purposes of the 2004 JMC and need not be raised again:
(1) Title 18 U.S.C. § 2520 does not create a private cause of action for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2512. This ruling applies to all of the JMC.
(2) Certain statutes of limitations legal issues have been decided, e.g.:
(a) A two-year statute of limitations applies to claims based upon 18 U.S.C. § 2520, and commences running when a plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.
(b) A two-year statute of limitations applies to claims based upon 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) and 605(e)(4).
(c) The court's rulings upon statutes of limitations issues were expressly applicable to all of the JMC.
General Order No. 2 at 16 (filed in each of the JMC on or about October 25, 2004).
Id. at 4.
General Order No. 3 (filed in each of the JMC on or about November 9, 2004).
General Order No. 3 at 16.
Id. at 30.
Id. at 33.
D. Filings Submitted to the Court
Ordinarily, counsel are required to submit to the clerk of court a copy of any document tendered for filing for the use of the Arizona judge to whom the case is assigned. Commencing upon receipt of a copy of this order, the parties in the JMC shall accomplish the following with respect to any document that is to be filed in the JMC:
(1) The originals only of all documents shall be presented to the clerk of court as usual.
(2) A legible, complete copy shall be mailed by priority mail to:
Judge H. Russel Holland United States District Court 222 West 7th Avenue — No. 54 Anchorage, Alaska 99513
concurrent with the filing of the original with the clerk of court.
(3) Counsel shall incorporate into their certificate or affidavit of service a certification or affirmation that:
A complete, duplicate copy of this document has been forwarded directly to Judge Holland.
Do not send extra copies to the clerk's office or a previously assigned judge. Doing that causes confusion and needless work.
E. Settlements and Alternative Dispute Resolution
The court shall be promptly notified when parties to a JMC have reached a settlement. The court will acknowledge such notices and will call upon the parties to consummate their settlement and effect a dismissal of the settled case within 30 days following the court's receipt of notice of the settlement.It is the court's best judgment that court annexed arbitration is not likely to be useful in the JMC. However, mediation has proven useful in the 2003 JMC and shall be calendared during May 2005 for those defendants who desire a mediation session with plaintiff.
F. Pro Se Defendants
A number of defendants have, as is their right, chosen to act as their own attorney. Pro se parties are subject to the same rules, the same scheduling and planning processes, and the same obligations to be familiar with and to comply with court rules and orders as are parties represented by counsel. There are only very limited circumstances under which pro se parties receive any kind of "special treatment." By and large, the court is not in a position to assist or advise pro se defendants.
When, in its orders, the court makes reference to "counsel," that term should be understood to include pro se parties.
Responding to motions for summary judgment is the only example that readily comes to mind. The court will prompt pro se defendants as to their obligations in responding to a motion for summary judgment.
Because of the large number of JMC and the substantial similarities between them, there will be significant opportunities for pro se defendants to "follow the lead" of represented parties. However, doing that will take some effort on the part of pro se parties. They will have to monitor what is going on in other of the JMC by consulting the court's internet page, the clerk's dockets, and other case files.
The clerk's docket is a schedule of each and every paper filed in a particular case, arranged by date of filing. The docket contains a summary description of each document.
G. Defaults
The taking of defaults as to defendants who do not timely answer plaintiff's complaints and the seeking of default judgment will be governed by CMO-5.
Filed in the JMC then pending on May 12, 2004.
II. Case Development Plan A. Parties and Pleadings
Based upon its review of the pleadings in this case, the court has identified no immediate need for amendments to pleadings or addition of parties. But see Paragraph III.B(1), page 17.B. Discovery/Disclosures
Discovery/disclosures shall be conducted in accordance with Rules 26 through 37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except as expressly otherwise provided in this order. Discovery/disclosures in the 2004 JMC shall be accomplished as follows:
See 1 Causes of Action (Second) 499, IV Practice Checklists, § 24 Plaintiff's Discovery and § 25 Defendant's Discovery.
(1) Disclosures.
(a) Counsel for each party shall contemporaneously prepare and maintain a written record of all disclosures and supplementation of disclosures under Rule 26(a) and (e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Unless required in support of a motion or by order of the court, disclosures and supplemental disclosures need not be filed with the court.
(b) Initial disclosures as required by Rule 26(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by plaintiff and defendants in the2004 JMC, shall be exchanged on or before February 14, 2005.
The disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, will be addressed by the court in an order for pretrial proceedings and final pretrial conference, which the court will issue concurrent with setting one or more cases for trial.
(c) Disclosures and responses to discovery requests shall be supplemented as required by Rule 26(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, within 30 days of discovering the necessity of such supplementation or correction of disclosures or responses to discovery.
(d) Expert witness disclosures (reports) in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2) shall be made by plaintiff on or before November 2, 2005, in the 2004 JMC, and by defendants on or before December 2, 2005, in the 2004 JMC.
(2) Phasing of Discovery.
The court finds that it will likely be more economical and efficient to place some restrictions upon the timing of various modes of discovery. Accordingly, discovery for the 2004 JMC shall be divided into three phases:
(a) Paper discovery. Paper discovery may be undertaken in the 2004 JMC commencing February 15, 2005. All parties' initial paper discovery shall be served upon opposing parties in each of the JMC no later than March 14, 2005. Plaintiff's combined responses to defendants' paper discovery shall be served on or before May 19, 2005. Unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, defendants' several responses to plaintiff's initial paper discovery shall be served in accordance with applicable rules.
Exchange of information through requests for admissions (Rule 36), interrogatories (Rule 33), and requests for production (Rule 34).
Thirty days after service of interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admissions.
(b) Depositions of fact witnesses. Fact witness depositions in the 2004 JMC may be taken commencing May 2, 2005. Depositions shall not be noticed until after counsel have conferred as to scheduling of the deposition.
(c) Depositions of experts. Expert depositions in the 2004 JMC may be taken commencing December 2, 2005.
(3) Final Witness Lists/Close of Discovery.
(a) On or before August 4, 2005, each party in the 2004 JMC shall serve and file a final, revised fact witness list. Only those witnesses so disclosed will be permitted to testify at trial. The final, revised witness list shall include the name as well as the current address and telephone number for each witness whom the party expects to call at trial.
(b) All fact witness discovery in the 2004 JMC shall be commenced so as to be completed by September 30, 2005.
(c) All expert witness discovery in the 2004 JMC shall be commenced so as to be completed by March 3, 2006.
(d) The deadlines for completion of discovery are applicable to all forms of discovery and to all depositions, including what some lawyers call "perpetuation" depositions. A deposition may be taken after the close of discovery only by leave of court obtained upon a showing of good cause why the deposition was not taken prior to the close of discovery.
Deposition discovery or last-minute responses to paper discovery may disclose the need for follow-up discovery, and the court does not mean to preclude such follow-up discovery in fixing the time parameters for paper discovery or deposition discovery. However, the court will consider it to be an abusive discovery practice for a party to defer what should be undertaken in the initial paper or deposition discovery until after the closing date fixed above. What is permitted is "true" follow-up discovery that could not reasonably have been anticipated during the specified discovery period.
Counsel in each of the 2004 JMC are at liberty to agree between themselves and without need of submitting a formal stipulation to the court with respect to: additional time to respond to paper discovery and the initiation of or postponement of fact witness depositions. Counsel are not at liberty to change discovery close dates established in this order without the presentation of an appropriate motion or stipulation. The court is unlikely to alter discovery scheduling dates except for good cause shown.
It occurs to the court that there may be cases in which it would be to everyone's advantage for plaintiff to depose a defendant as the first order of business.
C. Conditions and Limitations on Discovery
(1) Paper Discovery. During the period fixed for paper discovery, a party may serve upon an opposing party discovery requests by means of requests for admissions, requests for production of documents, and/or interrogatories. However, the cumulative total of such discovery requests shall be limited as follows:
(a) Requests for Production of Documents. No limit.
(b) Requests for Admissions. 35 per side in each case.
As to the 2003 JMC, Plaintiff had suggested a limit of 50 requests for production of documents. The court did not know how to interpret that suggestion, for the service of 50 separate requests for production of classes of documents is deemed by the court to be excessive; and, on the other hand, it is conceivable that there could be more than 50 ways to describe documents which would be relevant to this case. The court expects both plaintiff and defendants to fully and completely identify and make available for inspection and copying all of their respective records and things which have relevance to plaintiff's claims and defendants' defenses.
(c) Interrogatories. 45 per side in each case.
With respect to paper discovery, it shall not be a basis for defense objections that plaintiff has employed standard interrogatories, requests for admissions, or requests for production or things as to some or all of the defendants. However, plaintiff shall take care in using these modes of discovery to craft standard paper discovery so as to make it as case-specific as reasonably possible in light of the fact that, despite broad similarities between many of the cases, most of the cases appear to depend upon defendant-specific facts.
Counsel will have observed that the court has fixed a relatively narrow time window for defendants to make use of paper discovery. This is necessitated by the fact that defense counsel have evidently opted to "go it alone" without any defense organization. As a consequence, and lest paper discovery become unmanageable, it simply must be undertaken by all of the defendants promptly and within a short period of time in order that the process of responding can be accomplished efficiently. Once the time for defendants' initial paper discovery requests has passed, plaintiff shall have until May 19, 2005, to assemble a joint response to all defendants who have submitted overlapping discovery requests and to make individual responses to defendants who have submitted requests that do not overlap others. Defendants who do not submit paper discovery requests during the initial paper discovery period shall be deemed to have waived their right to employ these modes of discovery.
"Calendaring errors" or the "press of other business" or the like will not be acceptable excuses upon which to avoid this waiver provision.
(2) Depositions. The number of depositions of non-party fact witnesses shall be limited to five per side per case. Unless counsel agree otherwise, non-party fact witness depositions shall not exceed three hours in duration, named defendant depositions shall not exceed five hours in duration, and expert depositions shall not exceed five hours in duration. Plaintiff (employee) fact witnesses' depositions shall be of reasonable duration in relation to the number of examining defense counsel who must coordinate their examinations to avoid repetition.
Officers and employees of plaintiff are "party" witnesses.
Defendants absolutely must coordinate deposition scheduling as between themselves and plaintiff as regards depositions of plaintiff's fact witnesses. Except for good cause shown, the court will not permit multiple depositions of any witness, whether a party, party representative, expert, or totally unrelated individual. The court will not permit this restriction to become an impediment to effective deposition scheduling. Counsel will be required to work and cooperate with one another and deponents. Compromises as regards who can be available when will simply have to be made. The court will not tolerate arbitrary noticing of depositions without consultation with opposing counsel, nor will the court tolerate the delaying of depositions because all interested counsel (or pro se parties) cannot be available. Again, counsel are going to have to communicate and work with one another in scheduling depositions, scheduling them at times when the most interested parties can be available, and permitting others to submit written questions to be asked in the course of the deposition on behalf of parties who are unavailable.
The court does not mean to exclude the possibility of counsel agreeing amongst themselves for multiple depositions of a given witness who has information on multiple subjects of interest to differing groups of defense counsel.
III. Motion Practice A. Status of Motion Practice
(1) By CMO-1, the court stayed all motion practice in the JMC. Subject to the provisions of this CMO-9, the stay on motion practice in the 2004 JMC shall expire as of the close of business on January 14, 2005.(2) The court reserves the right to closely manage motion practice. If it should become apparent that there is reason to expedite certain motion practice, the court will do that. If it should become apparent that there is reason to defer certain motion practice that has been initiated, the court may, on its own motion, deny motions that have been filed, with leave to the parties to summarily renew a motion or motions at some later date.
Of particular concern in this area is the premature filing of motions for summary judgment. The court is well aware of the fact that many defendants are anxious to extricate themselves from this litigation at the earliest possible time. Sometimes motions for summary judgment provide an avenue for early relief; but the court cannot grant any party summary judgment where there is a genuine dispute as to facts which are material to a disposition. Summary judgment is possible where the material facts are not in dispute and a party demonstrates that he, she, or it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Moreover, where facts are critical to a motion for summary judgment, the court must give all parties a reasonable opportunity to develop the facts through discovery before ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f).
B. Preliminary Motions
(1) Motions to Amend or Add Parties. Motions to add other parties or to amend pleadings in the 2004 JMC subsequent to the date of this order shall be served and filed on or before June 6, 2005. Up to the latter date, motions to amend or add parties will be allowed as a matter of course unless good cause is shown why such a motion should not be granted. Thereafter, parties may amend or add parties only upon leave of court and for good cause shown.(2) Other Preliminary Motions. Rule 12 motions by defendants in the 2004 JMC shall be filed on or before March 31, 2005. The court encourages, but does not require, parties to file as preliminary matters motions raising pure issues of law. Such early motion practice might very well limit issues and thereby reduce the discovery load for everyone.
Prior to filing a preliminary motion, counsel contemplating such a motion shall contact opposing counsel for the purpose of providing a brief description of the proposed preliminary motion in order to ascertain whether or not opposing counsel will concede the matter. Opposing counsel shall respond no later than the close of business on the day following receipt of the motion proposal. If the matter is conceded, an appropriate stipulation of counsel shall be filed. If the party proposing such a motion receives no response, the motion may be filed, reciting compliance with this requirement in the lead paragraph of the motion.
C. Discovery Motions
Unless counsel stipulate otherwise, motions under the discovery rules shall be filed on or before 60 days following an occurrence which is the basis for a discovery motion. Discovery motions will be stricken if the parties have failed to comply with Rule 37(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which compliance shall be recited in the opening paragraph of any discovery motion. The court expects counsel to confer promptly once a discovery problem has been identified. The court expects counsel to resolve routine discovery matters amongst themselves.
This means, for example, that counsel are not at liberty to wait until the close of all discovery to raise questions about the sufficiency of responses to interrogatories. Motions to compel as regards paper discovery are due 60 days after responses are received or due.
See the requirements of L.R. Civ. 7.2(j). See also L.R. Civ. 37.1.
The court desires and expects that discovery motions will not be left until the end of the motion period except where exigent circumstances so require. If counsel become aware of the fact that a number of discovery motions are likely to be filed at about the same time covering overlapping matters, the court urges counsel to coordinate, by stipulation, both the filing of the motions and the joining of opposition if the matters are not resolved. That said, the emphasis shall be upon the prompt filing of motions and individual disposition of them unless otherwise ordered by the court.
D. Dispositive Motions
Motions for summary judgment in the 2004 JMC may be filed at any time, and shall be filed no later than April 4, 2006. Motions for summary judgment that do not conform to Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and/or Arizona Local Rule 56.1 will be summarily denied.E. Motions in Limine
Motions in limine will not be considered by the court until after all potentially dispositive motions have been ruled upon.
F. Procedures for Motion Practice
(1) General (Single Case) Motion Practice. Except as expressly provided in paragraph III.F(2), below, the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Arizona Local Rules shall be observed by all parties participating in motion practice. Pursuant to Arizona Local Rules, the response to a motion is due ten days after service of a motion, and the reply is due five days after service of a response. Times allowed for response and reply on motions for summary judgement are 30 and 15 days.
See L.R. Civ. 7.2(c) and (d).
See L.R. Civ. 56.1(b).
(2) Multi-Case Motion Practice. While the facts of individual JMC may vary considerably, and while discovery matters will likely have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, matters of law are likely to have application in many if not all of the JMC. Except for good cause shown, legal issues involved in the JMC will be addressed only once. Accordingly, the following procedures shall be employed by the parties when initiating a motion raising legal issues affecting multiple cases:
The intent here is to deal with disputed legal matters, not fact questions which must be decided at trial.
(a) Motions initiated by plaintiff raising a legal issue applicable to multiple cases shall be served upon all potentially affected defendants in all of the JMC simultaneously and filed with proof of service in the oldest, lowest-numbered file affected by the motion.
Plaintiff shall employ the case caption for the oldest (lowest-numbered) case and shall, in addition, and as part of the case caption, state as applicable:
"This motion applies to all cases."
[or]
"This motion applies to the following numbered cases: [list all relevant cases by number only]"
(b) Motions initiated by a defendant raising a legal issue applicable to multiple defendants shall be served upon all defendants and plaintiff simultaneously and filed with proof of service in the case file of the moving defendant. Plaintiff has prepared and shall provide to defense counsel upon request a master list of defendants in all of the JMC for use by defense counsel in serving such motions. Plaintiff shall update this master list regularly as necessary to keep the list current.
The moving defendant shall append to his/her case caption, as applicable:
"This motion applies to all cases."
[or]
"This motion applies to the following numbered cases: [list all relevant cases by number only]"
(c) All defendants in all of the JMC wishing to join in a defense motion shall serve upon all of the parties affected by the motion and file with the court (in the case in which the motion was filed) his or her notice of joinder no later than ten days from the service of the motion.
(d) Plaintiff's response to multi-case defense motions shall be served upon the initiating defendant as well as any joining defendant(s) within 20 days following the service of the motion; provided, however, that if joinders have added substantive arguments to those made by the initiating defendant, plaintiff's opposition to the motion shall be served and filed upon the initiating defendant and all joining defendants within 20 days following service of the last timely joinder that makes additional arguments.
The response time for motions for summary judgment is 30 days (L.R. Civ. 56.1(b)), irrespective of whether or not multiple cases are affected.
(e) Defendants' responses to a plaintiff's motion affecting multiple defendants shall be served upon plaintiff and the other affected defendants and filed within 20 days following service of the motion.
The response time for motions for summary judgment is 30 days (L.R. Civ. 56.1(b)), irrespective of whether or not multiple cases are affected.
(f) Replies (not required) may be filed as to multi-case motions within ten days following service of a response. Except with leave of court for good cause shown, only the party initiating a motion is entitled to serve and file a reply.
(g) The foregoing time requirements apply only to multicase motions. The time requirements of Arizona Local Rules apply to single-case motions.
See Paragraph III.F(1), above.
(h) Defendants in all of the JMC who are served with a multi-case motion are bound by the court's decision on all defense motions, irrespective of whether or not they have joined in or opposed the motion. The court will file its decision on multi-case motions in all affected cases. Except for good cause shown, the court will not entertain a second motion on a subject once it has ruled upon that subject. Having once ruled upon a subject, the court will abide by its initial ruling absent a clear showing that the initial ruling was wrong or that it is inapplicable to another party.
A relevant factor here will be whether or not a party had appeared or answered at the time a motion was filed.
(3) The parties shall strictly comply with the presumptive page limitations specified by Arizona Local Rules. See L.R. Civ. 7.2(e). The court will be disinclined to permit departures from these limitations except for exceptional circumstances and good cause shown.
(4) Motions of all classes filed by any party shall be limited to one specific subject, except that matters which are logically or necessarily interrelated may be addressed in a single motion. Subject to the time constraints imposed by Paragraph III.C, pages 18-19, multiple discovery compliance matters may be raised by a single motion.
(5) The court will not entertain "run-on" motion practice. That is, a party opposing a motion shall not incorporate another motion into an opposition document.
(6) Oral argument on procedural and discovery motion practice will not be entertained except for good cause shown. Oral argument on potentially dispositive motions will routinely be granted upon request. A party desiring oral argument on a motion should so state in the title of their motion or response to a motion. When oral argument is deemed appropriate and useful, the court will, after it has examined the moving papers, initiate arrangements for oral argument, which will ordinarily be accomplished by telephone.
IV. Further Pretrial Proceedings
Status, discovery, settlement, or other pretrial conferences will be scheduled on a case-by-case basis upon showing of a reasonable need for such procedures. Out of a concern for costs, the court would not entertain a request for a mass meeting of counsel except for specifically defined purposes and upon a showing that such a gathering would be more useful than other, less costly management procedures.Upon the expiration of the time specified for discovery and motion practice, and after dispositive motions have been ruled upon, the court will call upon counsel to certify the respective cases to be ready for trial. By that time, if not sooner, the court expects that one or more bases for grouping cases for trial will have emerged. The court will, at that time, take input from the parties as to how the cases should be grouped for trial and as to how a trial with multiple defendants should be carried out. In each of cases grouped for trial, the court will enter an order for pretrial proceedings and final pretrial conference fixing final pretrial procedures including provision for motions in limine, pretrial disclosures (Rule 26(a)(3)), exchange and management of exhibits, and trial briefs, etc. A final pretrial conference will be held shortly prior to trial. A discrete amount of time for trial will be estimated by the court in its order for pretrial proceedings and final pretrial conference and will be fixed at the final pretrial conference. The parties will not be at liberty to exceed those time limits.
APPENDIX TO CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 9 Summary of Calendar for 2004 JMC
Preliminary Motion Practice/Start 01.14.05 Initial Disclosures Due 02.14.05 Initial Paper Discovery/Start 02.15.05 Initial Paper Discovery/Close 03.14.05 Preliminary Motion Practice/Close 03.31.05 Mediation May 2005 Deposition Discovery (Fact Witness)/Start 05.02.05 Plaintiff's Combined Response to Defense Paper Discovery 05.19.05 Motion Practice to Amend or Add Parties/Close 06.06.05 Final Fact Witness Lists 08.04.05 Close of All Fact Witness Discovery 09.30.05 Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures 11.02.05 Defendants' Expert Disclosures 12.02.05 Expert Witness Depositions/Start 12.02.05 Close of Expert Discovery 03.03.06fn2a Dispositive Motion Practice/Close 04.04.06