Gila River Indian Community et al v. Becerra 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
Gila River Indian Community, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Xavier Becerra, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-22-01993-PHX-KML
ORDER
This case was filed in 2022 but was stayed for years pending other litigation and
settlement discussions. The court eventually determined a continued stay was not
appropriate and on February 25, 2026, the parties filed their case management report. (Doc.
60.) That report explained the parties did not anticipate significant discovery but proposed
a fact discovery deadline in January 2027 and a dispositive motion deadline in June 2027.
The court rejected those deadlines and directed the parties to submit a schedule that would
allow for dispositive motions to be filed in December 2026. (Doc. 61 at 1.) In the parties’
revised case management report, they jointly identified May 1, 2026, as an appropriate
deadline for good-faith settlement talks. The relevant portion of the report stated: “The
parties have been engaging in face-to-face good faith settlement talks for several months.
The parties propose Friday, May 1, 2026 as the latest date to reconvene such talks via
videoconference.” (Doc. 62 at 2.) The court issued a scheduling order that ordered “[a]ll
parties and their counsel shall meet in person or via videoconference and engage in good
faith settlement talks no later than May 1, 2026.” (Doc. 63 at 7.)
Case 2:22-cv-01993-KML Document 68 Filed 05/12/26 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
On May 8, 2026, the parties filed a joint status report. In that report, plaintiffs state
they “attempted to coordinate an in-person settlement conference within the time frame
established by the Court,” but “Defendants responded that they may need yet additional
information exchanges before engaging in settlement discussions.” (Doc. 67 at 2.)
Defendants agree they opted to ignore the court-ordered deadline for settlement talks.
Defense counsel explains that when he agreed to May 1, 2026, as the deadline for
settlement discussions, he “believed the parties would be able to meet to talk numbers by
then, but it has not worked out that way.” (Doc. 67 at 3.) Defense counsel then states this
litigation is complicated and he “intends to try to meet in person soon, probably late May
or early June.” (Doc. 67 at 3.) According to defense counsel, there is a set procedure by
which tribes and the federal government engage in settlement talks and “[t]he government
is not willing to alter this process for a case such as this.” (Doc. 67 at 3.) Defense counsel
does not cite any authority allowing government defendants or government counsel to
ignore court-imposed deadlines.
“A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be
cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,
975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) (simplified). A party’s failure to comply with a
scheduling order “undermine[s] the court’s ability to control its docket, disrupt[s] the
agreed-upon course of the litigation, and reward[s] the indolent and the cavalier.” Id.
Government defendants and counsel are not exempt from scheduling order deadlines. See
Exxon Shipping Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 34 F.3d 774, 776 n.4 (9th Cir. 1994) (“When
the government is named as a party to an action, it is placed in the same position as a private
litigant, and the rules of discovery in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply.”). The
appropriate—and expected—response to a court-ordered deadline that cannot be met is a
motion seeking an extension of time that explains the basis for that request.
Government counsel’s behavior is particularly troubling here because the statement
that “[t]he government is not willing to alter this process for a case such as this” (Doc. 67
at 3) indicates he violated the scheduling order consciously. In the future, if government
Case 2:22-cv-01993-KML Document 68 Filed 05/12/26 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
counsel cannot meet a scheduling deadline, he must seek to extend it before it expires
instead of choosing to ignore it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(1)(C) (allowing sanctions for
failing “to obey a scheduling . . . order”). In addition, government counsel must provide a
copy of this order to the Chief of the Civil Division at the United States Attorney’s Office.
The parties shall confer and provide a date-certain for settlement discussions. All
other case management deadlines remain in place.
IT IS ORDERED no later than May 19, 2026, the parties shall file a joint report
identifying a date certain for settlement discussions.
Dated this 12th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:22-cv-01993-KML Document 68 Filed 05/12/26 Page 3 of 3