Opinion
2:10-cv-0046-LDG-PAL.
February 18, 2011
ORDER
Defendant Jeffrey Hathaway has filed two motions for summary judgment (first motion #40, opposition #46, reply #47; second motion #49, opposition #54). Hathaway's first motion "requests an Order dismissing this action" based on Plaintiffs' "unwillingness to conform with repeated orders from this court." Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 3, Apr. 22, 2010, ECF No. 40. The court, however, is not currently convinced that summary judgment is appropriate based on the inconvenient delay associated with transferring this case from the District of Arizona. The court is also not inclined to grant summary judgment based on the alleged impropriety of orders issued by the District of Arizona, particularly when Hathaway raises such arguments for the first time in his reply brief. See Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). The court will accordingly deny Hathaway's first motion.
Hathaway's second motion argues that summary judgment is proper because Plaintiffs have failed to produce "a single medical record tying Mrs. Rathunde's claimed injuries to the subject accident." Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 3, Oct. 6, 2010, ECF No. 49. Plaintiffs argue that this motion is based on a misreading of the medical records provided during Plaintiffs' initial disclosures and is premature because discovery has not yet begun in earnest. The court notes, however, that the outcome of discovery issues presently pending before Magistrate Judge Leen directly relate to the parties' respective positions on the present motion. See ECF No. 55. Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing, the court will also deny Hathaway's second motion, but will further entertain such arguments on subsequent motion if appropriate. Accordingly,
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that Defendant Hathaway's motions for summary judgment (#40 and #49) are DENIED.
Dated this 18th day of February, 2011.