The scheduling issues in this case clearly are the result of (Kelly’s) lack of familiarity with the mechanics of the new scheduling rules and the virtual gutting of Rule 38.1, Ariz. R. Civ. P.

For example, had Plaintiff timely propounded discovery on May 29, 2015, as permitted by the scheduling order, the responses would not have even been due until July 13, 2015, leaving a little more than two weeks to satisfy Rules 26(g) and 37(a)(2)(C), Ariz. R. Civ. P., then file a motion to compel if efforts to obtain the discovery were unsuccessful, in order to meet the discovery cutoff date. The scheduling issues in this case clearly are the result of lack of familiarity with the mechanics of the new scheduling rules and the virtual gutting of Rule 38.1, Ariz. R. Civ. P.

Matthew Kelly of Kelly McCoy PLC unfamiliar with Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
Matthew Kelly of Kelly McCoy PLC unfamiliar with Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure

Matthew Kelly completes alcohol screening to avoid an Arizona Sate Bar complaint

Kelly, File No. 15-0888 (Letter to Respondent)

Kimberly Celaya vs City of Goodyear, Arizona Federal Court

kimberly_celaya_vs_city_of_goodyear

Download Higher Resolution PDF

kimberly_celaya_90_day_notice

Download Higher Resolution PDF

Lisa Huggins Hubbard Arizona Federal Bankruptcy City of Phoenix Neighborhood Specialist Kevin McCoy

Lisa Huggins Hubbard
7035 S. 19th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85042

City of Phoenix
Neighborhood Specialist
200 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Kevin McCoy
Matthew Kelly
Kelly-McCoy PLC

lisa_huggins_hubbard_arizona_bankruptcy_kelly_mccoy

Download Higher Resolution PDF