ATTORNEY Steven P. Pixley is opposing the plaintiff’s request to extend discovery and trial schedules in the civil action proceedings against Dr. John Doyle.
Pixley represents Doyle who has been accused of violating the Controlled Substance Act.
“[The United States Attorney’s Office for Guam and the NMI’s] proposed scheduling order contemplate, at the very least, depositions of additional fact witnesses and an expansion of the scope of discovery. This would cause a burden to Dr. Doyle in responding to that additional discovery and a delayed trial date,” Pixley said.
He will be required to shoulder substantial additional legal, litigation and expert fees, the lawyer said.
Meanwhile, he added, the plaintiff has unlimited resources.
“Dr. Doyle and his family have been living under a cloud since the commencement of this civil action and a delay of the trial in this proceeding will only darken this cloud. This substantial prejudice further justifies denial of the plaintiff’s motion,” Pixley said.
According to the lawyer, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause to modify the scheduling order because the plaintiff has not demonstrated diligence in attempting to comply with the court’s discovery deadlines.
“On the contrary, the record shows that the plaintiff has had a full and fair opportunity to conduct discovery within the agreed upon schedule.”
He said granting the plaintiff’s motion will delay the trial in this civil action and cause substantial prejudice to Dr. Doyle.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for Guam and the NMI wants the District Court for the NMI to require Dr. John Doyle to pay civil penalties in the total amount of $4,936,771 for allegedly dispensing opioids and controlled substances.
Doyle has denied the allegations and is demanding a jury trial in response to the civil lawsuit filed by the U.S. government.
Pixley noted that the plaintiff seeks the recovery of civil money penalties and injunctive relief under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 1301.
“It is legally significant that the legal issues identified in the complaint have not changed since March 5, 2021,” Pixley said. “Likewise, the legal issues identified in the complaint have not become more complex since March 5, 2021. Moreover, nothing significant or reasonably unforeseen justifying modification of the scheduling order has occurred since the commencement of this civil action. In point of fact, the parties have courteously engaged in discovery without significant delays or legal objections.”
