Aguirrev.A.P. Green Industries, Inc.

United States District Court, D. ArizonaSep 30, 2011
No. CV-11-1907-PHX-LOA (D. Ariz. Sep. 30, 2011)

No. CV-11-1907-PHX-LOA.

September 30, 2011



This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery, doc. 5, seeking an order authorizing Plaintiffs to immediately serve discovery requests on non-parties.

I. Legal Standard

II. Analysis

26or by court order.26 Yokohama Tire Corp. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc. 202 F.R.D. 612 614 accord Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc.208 F.R.D. 273275 Semitool208 F.R.D. at 276Best Western Int'l., Inc. v. Doe2006 WL 2091695

Plaintiffs have filed this motion ex parte, stating only that they mailed a copy of the motion and complaint to counsel for the various Defendants. In other words, Plaintiffs have not yet complied with Rule 4. Ex parte motions are rarely justified. ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Keiicmiro, 2008 WL 2264241, at * 2 (D.Ariz. May 30, 2008) (citing Yokohama, 202 F.R.D. at 613). To be justified, the evidence must show that the moving party's cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion procedures. Id. In ACE American Insurance, the plaintiff requested its motion be granted "[i]n the interests of expeditiously resolving this matter, minimizing unnecessary litigation expenses, and keeping in mind the interests of judicial economy." Id. The District Judge there found no reason to stray from regular noticed motion procedures and denied the plaintiff's motion. Id. As with the plaintiff in ACE American Insurance, Plaintiffs here have "offered no evidence to indicate that adherence to the procedures contemplated by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would somehow prejudice [their] case or cause undue expense." 2008 WL 2264241, at * 2. Morever, the Court is concerned that granting Plaintiffs' motion at this time might violate Defendants' constitutional due process right to fair notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, doc. 5, is DENIED without prejudice.