Opinion
Civil No. 03-1005 MV/LFG.
July 6, 2004
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs' opposed Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline [Doc. 43]. The Court considered the motion and the response [Doc. 44]. No reply has been filed. The time for filing a reply has elapsed.
The case management plan adopted by the Court following the parties' Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 scheduling conference set the close of discovery for May 3, 2004 [Doc. 15]. Subsequently, the discovery deadline was extended on March 29, 2004 [Doc. 32], and the close of discovery was moved to June 2, 2004.
Plaintiffs' motion fails to demonstrate any good cause why discovery was not completed within the original time frame contemplated by the Court's scheduling order or within the extended time period granted by the Court. To the contrary, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs served no written discovery on Defendants and have never requested copies of the recorded tapes or transcripts referred to in the motion, even though they have been offered to Plaintiffs on two prior occasions.
Thus, this is not a situation where despite the parties' due diligence or best efforts they were unable to complete discovery due to circumstances beyond their control. Rather, it appears that formal discovery was simply not pursued or, alternatively, not pursued in a timely fashion.
In Headlee v. Albuquerque Police Department, CIV 97-172 MV/RLP (D.N.M. Dec. 24, 1997)[Doc. 65], Magistrate Judge Puglisi noted:
[F]or good cause shown, a court may grant a motion enlarging deadlines in a scheduling order. "Good cause" in this context requires a showing that the scheduling order deadline could not be met with diligence. Denmon v. Runyon, 151 F.R.D. 404, 407 (D. Kan. 1993); see also Burks v. Oklahoma Publishing Co., 81 F.3d 975, 978 (10th Cir. 1996) (applying abuse of discretion standard to the review of a district court order refusing to modify a scheduling order because good cause was not shown).
In Headlee, the referral magistrate judge determined that case management deadlines should not be modified because there was no showing that original deadlines could not have been met with diligence. So, too, here. A second extension of the Court's case management plan, especially in the absence of a showing of good cause, is not in keeping with the Court's case management responsibilities under the Civil Justice Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq.
A Study of federal court process confirms that the establishment of a reasonable case management plan and adherence to the case management deadlines are key components to achieving the CJRA's goals. Studies on court delay conducted by the Federal Judicial Center reveal:
The primary finding was that greater and earlier judicial control over civil cases yields faster rates of disposition. The courts with the least amounts of delay characteristically kept stricter control of the case by precise scheduling of the cut-off date and other deadlines. The study concluded that "a court can handle its caseload rapidly only if it takes the initiative to require lawyers to complete their work in a timely fashion.
Flanders, Federal Judicial Center, Case Management and Court Management in the United States Courts at 17.
The Court recognizes that "the Civil Justice Reform Act . . . places substantial burdens on everyone involved in litigation in district courts." United States v. Diamond Industries, 145 F.R.D. 48 (D. Del. 1992). In the Diamond Industries case, the court commented on its obligations to enforce time deadlines.
The CJRA requires district courts to manage litigation with the view toward reducing delay and cost in bringing cases to trial. In this regard, the CJRA sets time limits that are to be met by the trial court for all pre-trial proceedings and ultimately trial. 28 U.S.C. § 473(a)(2)(B). The only permitted exception to these time limits countenanced by the CJRA is for a "complex case." 28 U.S.C. § 473(a)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).Id. at 49.
In this case, the Court concludes that the goals of the Civil Justice Reform Act are best met by adhering to the current case management plan. As good cause has not been shown for modifying the case management deadlines,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' request for case management modification [Doc. 43] is denied.