ORDER

JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the Jensen Defendants' Motion to Extend the Discovery Disclosure Date and Dispositive Motion Deadline (Doc. 84).

I. BACKGROUND

The issues in this case arise out of an automobile accident that occurred on September 21, 2004. (Doc. 58 at ¶ 2). The collision occurred when a tour bus, operated by Plaintiff Russell J. Conlon, collided with a 1997 Pontiac Sedan on U.S. Highway 160 on the western edge of the Kayenta Township in Kayenta, Arizona. (Id.). The occupants of the Sedan were all members of the Navajo Nation. (Id. at ¶ 3).1 No Plaintiff is a member of the Navajo Nation.2

On August 12, 2006, the Jensen Defendants filed claims in negligence against Plaintiffs in the Kayenta District Court. (Id. at ¶ 36). Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction, which the Kayenta District Court denied. (Id. at ¶ 37). Plaintiffs then filed a Writ of Prohibition with the Navajo Supreme Court seeking to prevent the Kayenta District Court from proceeding based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Id. at ¶ 38). The Navajo Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Kayenta District Court had jurisdiction. (Id. at 39).

Plaintiffs then filed this case seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that the Kayenta District Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Jensen Defendants' claims (Id. at ¶¶ 41-44) and (2) an injunction barring the Jensen Defendants from proceeding with their claims in Kayenta District Court. (Id. at ¶¶ 46-49).

Defendants then moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint without prejudice based on Plaintiffs' alleged failure to exhaust tribal court remedies. This Court denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss finding that requiring Plaintiffs to further exhaust their jurisdictional requirement in Kayenta District Court would be futile. (Doc. 80).

II. ARGUMENT

The Jensen Defendants now seek to extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines, arguing that they need to conduct additional discovery before anticipated motions for summary judgment are filed with the Court. Although the parties have stipulated to facts for purposes of motions for summary judgment and the Court is in possession of the full record before the Kayenta District Court and Navajo Supreme Court,3the Jensen Defendants argue that additional discovery is necessary before this Court can decide motions for summary judgment on the jurisdictional issue.

Specifically, the Jensen Defendants argue that additional discovery is necessary on the following facts:

First, it is entirely unclear to the Court why this discovery could not have taken place between the Court's scheduling Order of February 14, 2011 and the August 1, 2011 discovery deadline. Although the Jensen Defendants assert that the Court should liberally consider this request for extension because the Navajo Nation Court Defendants were not properly joined until after the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, the Court clearly stated in its Order of February 17, 2011 that "newly added Defendants are admonished that they will be bound by all deadlines in the scheduling order unless, within 20 days from when they are served, one of them moves for a supplemental Rule 16 scheduling conference." (Doc. 57 (emphasis in original)). It appears from the Docket that all Defendants were served by February 28, 2011 and the Jensen Defendants have offered no explanation as to why discovery could not have been conducted between February 28, 2011 and the August 1, 2011 discovery cutoff. Rather, the Jensen Defendants waited until the August 1, 2011 discovery deadline arrived and then filed a motion for extension of the discovery deadline, with no explanation as to their delay.4

Further, its appears that much of the information the Jensen Defendants seek is a matter of public record and the Court is unaware of anything preventing the Jensen Defendants from obtaining such information and requesting the Court to take judicial notice of such information.

Moreover, although the Jensen Defendants do not specify any method for conducting the additional discovery they seek, it appears to the Court that the only information the Jensen Defendants seek to obtain from Plaintiffs concerns (1) an insurance policy carried by the EXC Plaintiffs on the date of the accident and (2) information regarding the number of visits EXC Plaintiffs have made to Navajo Nation and the general safety record of the EXC Plaintiffs in conducting their touring businesses. The Court makes no determination regarding the relevancy of such information to the jurisdictional issue currently before the Court. However, the EXC Plaintiffs have stated, in their response to the Jensen Defendants' request for additional discovery, that they will provide the Jensen Defendants with a copy of that policy. It appears to the Court that the other information the EXC Defendants are seeking could be obtained through interrogatories.

Accordingly, the Court will reopen discovery solely to allow the Jensen Defendants to serve interrogatories on Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such a request shall be served within 10 days of the date of this Order and answers or objections to such a request shall be served within 10 days after such service. The current deadline to file dispositive motions will remain in effect.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Jensen Defendants' Motion to Extend the Discovery Disclosure Date and Dispositive Motion Deadline (Doc. 84) is denied in part and granted in part as follows:

The Jensen Defendants may serve interrogatories on Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within 10 days of the date of this Order. Any answers or objections to such a request shall be served within 10 days after such service. The deadline of February 27, 2012 to file dispositive motions remains in effect.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event of a discovery dispute, the parties shall jointly contact the Court via conference call to request a telephonic conference prior to filing any written discovery motions. The parties shall not contact the Court regarding a discovery dispute unless they have been unable to resolve the dispute themselves after personal consultation and sincere efforts to do so. The parties shall not file any written materials related to a discovery dispute without express leave of Court. If the Court does order written submissions, the movant shall include a statement certifying that counsel could not satisfactorily resolve the matter after personal consultation and sincere efforts to do so in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.2(j).