Rodriguez v. United States of America 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
Francisco Javier Laborin Rodriguez,
Plaintiff,
v.
United States of America, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-24-00049-TUC-RM
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant United States of America’s Motion to
Compel Plaintiff to appear in person for a deposition and independent medical examination
by the United States’ expert (Doc. 49), and the parties’ Stipulation to Amend Scheduling
Order (Doc. 54). The Court will deny as moot the Motion to Compel, and grant the
Stipulation.
I. Motion to Compel
In the Motion to Compel, Defendant explains that due to problems with Plaintiff’s
immigration status, Plaintiff refused to appear for a deposition and independent medical
examination on the basis that doing so may cause him to be detained by federal law
enforcement.1 (Doc. 49 at 1-5.) In Plaintiff’s response to the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff
explains that he was deported to Mexico shortly after Defendant’s Motion to Compel was
filed. (Doc. 50.) Therefore, Plaintiff states that he will now submit to being deposed in
1 In the Motion to Compel, Defendants also ask the Court to enter an Order requiring the
parties to submit a proposed amended scheduling order. Given that the parties have now
submitted a stipulated amended scheduling order of their own volition (Doc. 54), this
portion of the Motion to Compel will be denied as moot.
Case 4:24-cv-00049-RM Document 56 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 3

- 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
Mexico via videoconference or through any other arrangements that Defendant may make,
and that he will also cooperate with an independent medical examination. (Id.) In its reply,
Defendant concurs that it is now appropriate for Plaintiff to undergo his deposition via
videoconference, and that Defendant is evaluating “potential arrangements for an
independent medical examination since Plaintiff is now residing in Mexico.” (Doc. 51.)
Defendant withdraws its Motion to Compel “insofar as it asks the Court to compel
Plaintiff’s attendance at a deposition and independent medical examination in the United
States.” (Id.)
In the parties’ Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order, the parties explain that
Plaintiff’s deposition was completed via videoconference on March 11, 2026, and that
Plaintiff is cooperating with the United States’ independent medical expert by providing
medical records and diagnostic imaging. (Doc. 54.) Since Plaintiff can no longer undergo
an in-person medical evaluation in the United States, the United States’ medical expert will
complete a report based upon medical records only. (Id.) In light of the completion of
Plaintiff’s deposition, and because Plaintiff is cooperating with the United States’ medical
expert, the Court will deny the Motion to Compel as moot.
II. Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order
In their Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order, the parties explain that the above-
described challenges to completing Plaintiff’s deposition and medical evaluation have
delayed the completion of discovery in this case. (Doc. 54.) The parties further explain that
“[o]nce the United States’ medical expert’s report is complete, a second expert is expected
to rely on that report to opine on other matters.” Therefore, additional time is needed to
complete the experts’ reports, as well as any other discovery, including depositions of
experts and “discovery necessitated by Plaintiff’s recent deposition testimony.” (Id.) The
parties request that the case management deadlines set in the Court’s October 23, 2025
Order be extended by approximately four and a half months. (Id.) Good cause appearing,
the Court will approve the Stipulation.
. . . .
Case 4:24-cv-00049-RM Document 56 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
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
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 49) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation to Amend Scheduling
Order (Doc. 54) is approved. The following deadlines govern the remainder of this case:
1. The deadline for the United States to disclose all expert witnesses, exhibits,
reports, and other Rule 26(a)(2) matters is May 29, 2026.
2. The deadline for disclosure of any rebuttal expert opinions is June 26, 2026.
3. The deadline for completion of all discovery, including depositions of parties,
witnesses, and experts, is July 31, 2026.
4. The deadline to file dispositive motions is August 28, 2026.
5. The deadline to file a Joint Settlement Status Report is August 28, 2026, and
every ninety (90) days thereafter.
6. A Joint Proposed Pretrial Order shall be filed within thirty (30) days after
resolution of any summary judgment motions filed. If no such motions are filed,
a Joint Proposed Pretrial order shall be due on or before September 18, 2026.
Dated this 6th day of April, 2026.
Case 4:24-cv-00049-RM Document 56 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 3