Opinion
Case No. 3:04-cv-568-J-32HTS.
January 13, 2005
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff Nicholas B. Carter's Motion for Enlargement of Discovery Period and Resetting of Remaining Dates in the Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. #187; Motion), filed on December 21, 2004. The Motion is opposed. Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff Carter's Motion for Extension of Discovery (Doc. #188; Murphy's Opposition), filed on December 22, 2004; Defendant Deirdre S. Merwin's Opposition to Plaintiff Nicholas B. Carter's Motion for Enlargement of Discovery Period and Resetting of Remaining Dates in the Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. #200; Merwin's Opposition), filed on January 6, 2005.
Plaintiff Carter requests the Court to extend the deadlines, including expert disclosure and discovery deadlines that had passed at the time the Motion was filed. See Motion at 9. In support, Plaintiff states Defendant Ryan has failed to provide discovery, even in light of orders from the Court. Id. at 4. Further, it is argued Defendant Murphy delayed in providing discovery, see id. at 5, and Defendant Merwin has both delayed and failed to provide certain discovery. See id. at 7-8.
Defendant Murphy responds "she has complied with discovery to the best of her ability." Murphy's Opposition at 2. She also acknowledges "that she is obligated to turn over any additional information or documentation that comes to her attention or into her possession[.]" Id. at 5. Ms. Merwin contends "[f]irst, the motion is untimely and plaintiff Carter has failed to justify the tardiness of his motion. Second, Mr. Carter has failed to show `good cause' for the six-month extension." Merwin's Opposition at 1. Ms. Merwin suggests Plaintiff has not exercised diligence in conducting discovery thus far and should not be granted an extension. See id. at 3-4.
Pursuant to the Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. #119; ACMSO), the discovery deadline in this case was December 15, 2004. Id. at 1. The expert report deadlines occurred prior to that date, in October and November. Id. The Motion was filed on December 21, 2004, after the expiration of those deadlines. Additionally, under Rule 16(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the ACMSO "shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause[.]" Here, the expert and discovery deadlines were already extended by the Court. See Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. #50); ACMSO. Considering all the circumstances of this case, the Court finds it would not be appropriate to extend those deadlines, which had passed at the time the Motion was filed.
It is noted the Court's decision regarding these deadlines does not relieve any party from the obligation to provide discovery pursuant to an order of the Court, or in response to a request that was timely served.
However, the Court finds good cause to extend the other deadlines in the case in order to allow the parties an opportunity to complete the discovery which is already underway in response to orders of the Court or timely requests. Accordingly, the Motion (Doc. #187) is GRANTED to the extent the following amended deadlines shall apply:
Dispositive and Daubert Motions Deadline: March 9, 2005 Filing of Pretrial Statement: June 8, 2005 Final Pretrial Conference June 15, 2005 (3:00 p.m.) Trial Term: July 5-22, 2005 (9:00 a.m.)
Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.
In light of this Order, the Unopposed Motion of Alexandra Murphy for Additional Time to File Summary Judgment Motion (Doc. #201), filed on January 11, 2005, to which Defendant Merwin filed a response on January 11, 2005, see Defendant Deirdre S. Merwin's Response to Unopposed Motion of Alexandra Murphy for Additional Time to File Summary Judgment Motions (Doc. #202), is DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED.