U.S. District Judge Kathleen Martinez issued the order on May 12, 2026, in Gila River Indian Community et al v. Becerra et al. The judge directed government counsel to provide a copy of the reprimand to the Chief of the Civil Division at the United States Attorney’s Office.

The case had been stayed for years pending settlement discussions. On February 25, 2026, the parties filed a case management report proposing a fact discovery deadline in January 2027 and a dispositive motion deadline in June 2027. Judge Martinez rejected those deadlines, directing the parties to submit a schedule allowing for dispositive motions by December 2026.

In a revised report, the parties jointly identified May 1, 2026, as the latest date to reconvene settlement talks via videoconference. The court issued a scheduling order requiring all parties and counsel to meet in person or via videoconference no later than that date.

On May 8, 2026, the parties filed a joint status report stating that plaintiffs attempted to coordinate an in-person settlement conference within the established timeframe. However, the report noted that defendants responded they may need additional information exchanges before engaging in settlement discussions.

The government defendants agreed that they opted to ignore the court-ordered deadline. Defense counsel explained that he believed the parties would be able to meet to talk numbers by May 1, but it had not worked out that way.

Counsel stated the litigation is complicated and he intends to try to meet in person soon, probably late May or early June. According to defense counsel, there is a set procedure by which tribes and the federal government engage in settlement talks and the government is not willing to alter this process for a case such as this.

Defense counsel did not cite any authority allowing government defendants or 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," Judge Martinez wrote, citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992).

The judge noted that a party’s failure to comply with a scheduling order undermines the court’s ability to control its docket, disrupts the agreed-upon course of the litigation, and rewards the indolent and the cavalier.

Government defendants and counsel are not exempt from scheduling order deadlines, Judge Martinez wrote, citing Exxon Shipping Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 34 F.3d 774, 776 n.4 (9th Cir. 1994). The appropriate 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 was particularly troubling because the statement that the government is not willing to alter its process indicates he violated the scheduling order consciously, the judge wrote.

In the future, if government counsel cannot meet a scheduling deadline, he must seek to extend it before it expires instead of choosing to ignore it, Judge Martinez said, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1)(C), which allows sanctions for failing to obey a scheduling order.

The parties must confer and provide a date certain for settlement discussions by May 19, 2026. All other case management deadlines remain in place.