EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. AUTOZONE, INC. (D.Ariz. 9-4-2007)

STEPHEN McNAMEE, Chief District Judge

The Court has received yet another joint request for an extension of time to complete discovery, albeit this time for another reason. At the initial Rule 16 hearing, with concurrence of counsel, the Court set generous deadlines for completing discovery. An extension was thereafter granted to accommodate counsels' congested schedule. Despite the granting of the extension, counsel sought an additional extension; again, the request was based on counsels' congested schedule. For the reasons stated in its order, the Court denied the stipulation to extend discovery. Now, based on Plaintiff's lead counsel's unexpected medical emergency, the parties seek an additional extension to complete discovery. The contemplated dates bare a striking resemblance to the earlier stipulation that the Court recently rejected. While the Court is sympathetic to counsel's medical emergency the Court will deny the request.

Initially, the EEOC has a legion of lawyers available to Plaintiff, and at least a few could be able to assist in completing discovery. Scheduling approximately seven depositions on the last day of discovery, all to be conducted by one counsel, demonstrates that these witnesses are not critical to the case. As such, it would appear that they could be called to trial with a modicum of preparation. Moreover, each side was granted ten (10) depositions. The noticed, but not taken depositions, represent 70% of Plaintiff's allotment and approximately 35% of the total amount granted.

It is apparent to the Court that the discovery deadlines were not taken seriously by counsel. While the business of other courts was attended to, the deadlines of this Court were not taken seriously.

Finally, the Court has not been provided any indicia of the discovery that has been conducted to date to justify a further accommodation. As noted earlier, the EEOC has substantial resources to address the discovery in this case, despite counsel's concerns to the contrary.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING the parties' Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Doc. 60).