Enriquez v. Gemini Motor Transport LP ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 William Enriquez, No. CV-19-04759-PHX-GMS 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Gemini Motor Transport LP, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court are William Enriquez’s (“Plaintiff”) Request for Leave to 17 File a Second Motion for Summary Adjudication Solely as to Defendant’s New 18 Affirmative Defense (Doc. 113) and Renewed Request to Continue Discovery Cutoff Date 19 (Doc. 114.) For the reasons below, both Motions are denied. 20 BACKGROUND 21 In a prior order, the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to disclose his prior criminal 22 history in violation of the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (“MIDP”). (Doc. 98.) In light 23 of this new information, the Court permitted Defendant to file an amended Answer adding 24 an after-acquired evidence defense. (Doc. 98.) Nearly a month later, the Court decided 25 the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, denying Defendant’s Motion as to the 26 new defense. (Doc. 102.) However, because Defendant had so recently amended its 27 Answer—after it had filed its Motion for Summary Judgment—the Court specifically held 28 that “Defendant will be allowed to put on any disclosed witness to testify as to Defendant’s 1 practices regarding prior convictions at trial.” (Doc. 102 at 24.) 2 Thereafter, the parties jointly moved to reopen discovery and stay the pretrial 3 deadlines. (Doc. 106.) The Court granted the Motion, giving the parties 120 days—until 4 June 7, 2022—to conduct additional discovery as to the newly added affirmative defense. 5 (Doc. 107.) Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a second Motion for Summary Judgment 6 as to the after-acquired evidence defense, and both parties request the reopening of 7 discovery, although they disagree as to the scope. The Court denies both Motions. 8 DISCUSSION 9 I. Request for Leave 10 Plaintiff first requests leave to file a second Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 11 113.) “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not limit the number of motions that may 12 be filed.” Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010). Nevertheless, 13 “district courts retain discretion to ‘weed out frivolous or simply repetitive motions.’” Id. 14 (quoting Knox v. Sw. Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1997)). 15 Here, such a second Motion for Summary Judgment would be repetitive. The Court 16 has already decided that Plaintiff failed to comply with the MIDP, depriving Defendant of 17 discovery on this matter until after the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment were filed. 18 (Docs. 98, 102.) Moreover, in so deciding, the Court explicitly held that Defendant would 19 be permitted to put on evidence in support of the defense at trial, so long as it otherwise 20 complied with the MIDP and other discovery rules. (Docs. 98, 102.) Plaintiff could have 21 easily sought summary judgment on this defense by actually complying with the MIDP; 22 his failure to do so does not justify a second Motion. 23 II. Request to Continue Discovery Cutoff 24 Both parties request an extension of the discovery deadline. (Docs. 114, 117.) As 25 already explained to the parties, (Doc. 111), however, Rule 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” 26 standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson 27 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). “[C]arelessness is not 28 compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief. . . . If [the 1 || party seeking to amend] was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Jd. Though both parties 2|| agree that discovery should be extended, neither has proven that they were diligent in pursuing discovery within the 120-day period. The Court recognizes that one of 4|| Defendant’s representatives and one of the defense counsel have experienced health- || related issues. (Docs. 114, 117.) But the parties do not explain how this has affected || discovery: Plaintiff merely cites an outstanding discovery dispute, and Defendant offers a 7\| generalized desire to “take any necessary deposition” so that “discovery can be wrapped || up.” (Doc. 117 at 2.) This is not diligence. To the extent the parties cannot come to an 9|| agreement regarding any outstanding discovery, the Court will consider the dispute 10 || pursuant to the process outlined in the Case Management Order. (Doc. 21 at 3-4.) 11 CONCLUSION 12 Accordingly, 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request for Leave to File a Second Motion for Summary Adjudication Solely as to Defendant’s New Affirmative Defense (Doc. 113) is DENIED. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Renewed Request to Continue 17 || Discovery Cutoff Date (Doc. 114) is DENIED. 18 Dated this 28th day of June, 2022. Whar ) 50 A Whacrsay Fotos Chief United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-