Bates v. Daisy Education Corporation et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Barthinia Bates,
Plaintiff,
v.
Daisy Education Corporation, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-24-02647-PHX-KML
ORDER
At the case management conference on May 9, 2025, the court informed the parties
that discovery motions are not allowed. (Doc. 47 at 1.) Despite that, on July 7, 2025,
plaintiff Barthinia Bates filed a motion to compel regarding surveillance footage she
believed defendants possessed. (Doc. 46.) The court denied that motion and reminded
Bates the court’s discovery dispute procedures are mandatory. (Doc. 47.) The court also
warned Bates that “failure to comply with the court’s procedures may result in sanctions,
including the dismissal with prejudice of her claims.” (Doc. 47 at 2.)
On September 29, 2025, Bates filed a “Joint Discovery Dispute.” (Doc. 50.) That
document complied with some of the court’s discovery dispute procedures, indicating
Bates is aware how discovery disputes must be presented. Despite that knowledge, on
December 3, 2025, Bates filed a “Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines Due to
Extraordinary Circumstances.” (Doc. 52.)
Although the title of Bates’s motion involves extending the discovery deadlines, the
body of the motion explains Bates is seeking relief regarding a “discovery dispute.” (Doc.
Case 2:24-cv-02647-KML Document 53 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
52 at 1.) According to Bates, defendants have failed “to disclose experts and respond to
interrogatories” and she requests the court extend discovery deadlines and order defendants
“provide complete interrogatory responses and expert disclosures forthwith.” (Doc. 52 at
2.) Because Bates’s filing is properly categorized as presenting a discovery dispute, she
was required to jointly file a document that included defendants’ position. Bates did not do
so and her motion is denied as an improper discovery motion. Bates is warned for the third
time that she must comply with the court’s procedures and she may be sanctioned if her
behavior continues.
One of the emails Bates attaches suggests defense counsel may also be ignoring the
court’s mandatory discovery dispute procedures. (Doc. 52-2 at 1–2.) These procedures are
mandatory for both parties, and defendants run the same risk of sanctions that Bates does
if defense counsel fails to comply with the procedures ordered.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Extend (Doc. 52) is DENIED.
Dated this 4th day of December, 2025.
Case 2:24-cv-02647-KML Document 53 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 2