Opinion
Case No. 2:10-CV-270
2013-09-19
MALCOLM WADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WERNER TRUCKING COMPANY a/k/a WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant.
JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK R. ABEL
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of the Discovery Cutoff to Depose Defendant's Witness, Al Gaston. Doc. 117. For the reasons below, this motion is GRANTED.
As the title of Plaintiff's motion suggests, he seeks to extend the discovery deadline as it pertains to a single witness. He filed the motion to do so on September 13, 2013. September 16, 2013 served as the cutoff for discovery in this case. Doc. 113. According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a date in the scheduling order "may be modified only for good cause." Whether good cause exists depends on two considerations. "The primary measure of Rule 16's 'good cause' standard is the moving party's diligence in attempting to meet the case management order's requirements." Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002). A secondary measure hinges on "possible prejudice to the party opposing the modification." Id. Based on both of these measures, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion.
First, Plaintiff has demonstrated diligence in attempting to meet the scheduling order's cut-off date for discovery. As Plaintiff's motion explains, and as its attachments demonstrate, Plaintiff notified Defendant on Wednesday, September 11, 2013 that he would like to depose Mr. Gaston. Defendant responded that Mr. Gaston would not be available before the close of discovery on September 16, 2013, and that it would not agree to the deposition of Mr. Gaston outside the discovery deadline. To be sure, Defendant identified Mr. Gaston as a witness in its Rule 26 disclosures served in July of 2010, see doc. 119 Ex. A; more, Plaintiff alerted opposing counsel regarding the requested deposition close to the cut-off date. Still, Plaintiff still did so before the actual date. Further, when requesting the deposition Plaintiff's counsel represented that she was available throughout the rest of the week and on the final day of discovery. Plaintiff's counsel also indicated that the deposition would not "take much longer than an hour." Doc. 117-1 at 1. Finally, Plaintiff's briefing indicates that the depositions have been conducted via telephone, rendering the relatively short notice for the deposition less of an issue. On balance, based on the above, Plaintiff has demonstrated diligence in attempting to meet the scheduling order's cut-off date for discovery.
Second, Defendant would face very little, if any prejudice in extending the discovery deadline as it pertains to Mr. Gaston. Trial in this case is currently scheduled to begin the next calendar year, on May 5, 2014. Defendant will still have nearly seven months to prepare for trial after the window to depose Mr. Gaston closes. Further, Plaintiff intends to conduct the deposition via telephone, which poses a smaller inconvenience than would otherwise be the case for the extension of a discovery deadline. Defendant does raise the issue of the October 14, 2013 deadline for any dispositive motions or any motion for decertification of the conditional class. Extending the discovery deadline for Mr. Gaston by a month would run into this deadline. Accordingly, the Court extends the discovery deadline as it pertains to Mr. Gaston by two weeks from the date of this Order. The rest of the deadlines in this case will remain the same. This extension gives Plaintiff enough time to depose Mr. Gaston, yet preserves enough time for both parties to meet the existing October 14, 2013 motions deadline.
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff has met Rule 16's "good cause" requirement. His motion to extend discovery in order to depose Mr. Gaston is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall complete discovery as it pertains to Mr. Gaston on or before October 3, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE