Weiss v. Hyatt Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedOctober 16, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-00606
StatusUnknown

This text of Weiss v. Hyatt Corporation (Weiss v. Hyatt Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Weiss v. Hyatt Corporation, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Marc Weiss, No. CV-23-00606-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Hyatt Corporation, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This case was filed on December 5, 2022, in the Central District of California. (Doc. 16 1.) In April 2023, it was transferred to the District of Arizona and the court entered a 17 scheduling order. (Doc. 41, 47.) That initial scheduling order required discovery be 18 completed by February 12, 2024. (Doc. 47.) From April 2023 to July 2024, the parties 19 requested extensions of the case management deadlines three times, all of which were 20 granted. (Doc. 65, 68, 72.) Fact discovery is presently due by October 31, 2024, and 21 dispositive motions are due by March 24, 2025. 22 On October 10, 2024, the parties filed a fourth motion to extend the discovery 23 deadlines. The parties argue new information was discovered during plaintiff’s deposition 24 on June 26, 2024, requiring defendants obtain additional medical records. Defendants have 25 attempted to do so but the medical providers “have been slow” in responding. (Doc. 75 at 26 2.) Thus, the parties request a 90-day extension of all deadlines. The proposed deadlines 27 would require fact discovery be completed by January 29, 2025, and dispositive motions 28 be filed by June 24, 2025. 1 “A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be 2 cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 3 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation marks omitted). Ignoring a scheduling order 4 “undermine[s] the court’s ability to control its docket, disrupt[s] the agreed-upon course of 5 the litigation, and reward[s] the indolent and the cavalier.” Id. Scheduling orders are critical 6 to ensure “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Fed. R. Civ. 7 P. 1. And the “[o]rderly and expeditious resolution of disputes is of great importance to the 8 rule of law.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 9 (9th Cir. 2006). 10 This case has been pending in federal court for twenty-two months. Absent 11 exceptional circumstances, the court requires dispositive motions be filed earlier than the 12 two-year anniversary of filing. The proposed schedule contemplates dipositive motions 13 well past that deadline. Based on the claims, defenses, and appropriate scope of discovery 14 in this case, the proposed deadlines would frustrate the basic purposes of Rule 1. 15 Although the parties have not established an entitlement to alter the scheduling 16 order, the court will extend the remaining deadlines in an effort to ensure this case is 17 resolved on the merits. But the court will allow significantly shorter extensions than 18 requested such that dispositive motions are filed no later than April 4, 2025, and the other 19 deadlines are adjusted accordingly. The parties must make every effort to comply with 20 these deadlines, which will not be extended again absent extraordinary circumstances. 21 Accordingly, 22 IT IS ORDERED the Fourth Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 75) is 23 GRANTED IN PART. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall comply with the following: 25 1. Initial Disclosures. The deadline for making the initial disclosures required by 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) has passed. 27 2. Deadline for Joinder, Amending Pleadings, and Filing Supplemental Pleadings. The 28 deadline for joining parties, amending pleadings, and filing supplemental pleadings has 1 passed. 2 3. Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) Non-Waiver Order. The Court orders that a 3 communication or information covered by the attorney-client privilege or work-product 4 protection that is disclosed in connection with the litigation pending before the Court does 5 not waive the privilege or protection in this or any other federal or state proceeding. This 6 provision does not require any party agreement, and it avoids the need to litigate whether 7 an inadvertent production was reasonable. By reducing the risk of waiver, this order affords 8 parties the opportunity to reduce the cost of discovery by reducing pre-production privilege 9 review. 10 4. Discovery Limitations. Depositions shall be limited to seven hours each, as provided 11 in Rule 30(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A party may serve on any other 12 party up to 25 interrogatories, including subparts, 25 requests for production of documents, 13 including subparts, and 25 requests for admissions, including subparts. Each interrogatory 14 or request seeking information not logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily 15 related to the primary request will count as a separate request. The limitations set forth in 16 this paragraph may be increased by mutual agreement of the parties, but such an increase 17 will not result in an extension of the discovery deadlines set forth in this order. 18 5. Fact Discovery. The deadline for completion of fact discovery, including discovery 19 by subpoena and all disclosures required under Rule 26(a)(3), shall be November 29, 2024. 20 To ensure compliance with this deadline, the following rules shall apply: 21 a. Depositions: All depositions shall be scheduled to start at least five working 22 days before the discovery deadline. A deposition started five days before the deadline may 23 continue up until the deadline, as necessary. 24 b. Written Discovery: All interrogatories, requests for production of 25 documents, and requests for admissions shall be served at least 30 days before the fact 26 discovery deadline. 27 c. The parties may mutually agree in writing, without Court approval, to extend 28 the time for providing discovery in response to requests under Rules 33, 34, and 36 of the 1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such agreed-upon extensions, however, shall not alter or 2 extend the deadlines set forth in this order. 3 d. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, non- 4 party witnesses shall not be permitted to attend (either physically, electronically, or 5 otherwise) the deposition of any other witness in this case without an order of this Court to 6 the contrary. 7 e. A request by counsel for extension of discovery deadlines in any case that 8 has been pending more than two years must be accompanied by a certification stating the 9 client is aware of and approves of the requested extension. The Court does not consider 10 settlement talks or the scheduling of mediations to constitute good cause for an extension. 11 6. Expert Disclosures, Expert Discovery, and Motions Challenging Expert Testimony. 12 a. The party with the burden of proof on an issue shall provide full and complete 13 expert disclosures, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil 14 Procedure, no later than January 6, 2025. 15 b. The responding party (not having the burden of proof on the issue) shall 16 provide full and complete expert disclosures, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the 17 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Weiss v. Hyatt Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiss-v-hyatt-corporation-azd-2024.