Opinion
CIV. NO. 01-227 WJ/DJS NCE
Janurary 8, 2002
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines, Vacate Settlement Conference and Vacate Trial Setting filed January 4, 2001. As grounds for the motion the parties state that due to circumstances beyond their control and by agreement of counsel additional time is needed to conduct discovery.
When a reasonable time limit for discovery is set and there are no extenuating circumstances, the Court has discretion to enforce discovery deadlines. See Otero v. Buslee, 695 F.2d 1244, 1247 (10th Cir. 1982). Fed.R.Civ.P.16(b) specifically provides that scheduling orders can be modified only upon a showing of good cause. A showing of good cause requires the party seeking relief to show that the deadline cannot reasonably be met despite its diligence. Pfeiffer v. Eagle Manufacturing Co., 137 F.R.D. 352, 355 (D. Kan. 1991). In this matter, the Court has granted a prior motion requesting an extension of the deadline to disclose expert witnesses. More importantly, the deadline for filing motions related to discovery expired on January 2, 2002, two days prior to the filing of the instant motion and approximately thirty-seven days after the close of the discovery deadline. The deadlines entered in this matter were imposed at the Initial Scheduling Conference held June 27, 2001, although they were not formalized until entry of the Initial Pre-Trial Report on November 8, 2001. In all, the parties were given one hundred and fifty days to conduct discovery.
In light of these facts, the parties' untimely motion to extend deadlines is not welt taken. Further, the parties' general statement that they have not completed discovery does not constitute good cause for an extension of deadlines in any event.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the parties' Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines, Vacate Settlement Conference and Vacate Trial Setting is denied.