Tag: lawyer

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.