Opinion
19-cv-00169-LL-BGS
03-10-2022
Michael TESTONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BARLEANS ORGANIC OILS, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION FOR ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER
Hon. Bernard G. Skomal, United States Magistrate Judge
The parties' Joint Motion for Order Modifying Scheduling Order (ECF No. 114) is currently before the Court. The parties requested to continue the expert discovery deadline one month, from March 25, 2022 to April 29, 2022, and to continue the pretrial motion deadline one month, from April 25, 2022 to May 23, 2022. (Id. at 3.) The parties represented that they have made “significant progress in their settlement discussions and are optimistic a settlement can be reached within the next thirty (30) days.” (Id. at 2.) The parties then stated that they “believe it will be more efficient and cost-effective to focus their time and efforts on achieving an amicable resolution of this case rather than preparing for and taking expert witness depositions.” (Id.) The parties also stated that “the undersigned defense counsel represents that, on March 4, 2022, he was assigned to a case that is set to begin a two-week trial on March 14, 2022, which conflicts with the currently-scheduled expert witness depositions in this case.” (Id.)
The parties are now asking to continue the expert discovery deadline and the pretrial motion deadline by one month each based on the parties wanting to conduct settlement discussions and Defendant's counsel being recently assigned to case that has trial set to begin on March 14, 2022. (ECF No. 114.) However, the Court has already granted the parties' multiple requests to continue dates.
On February 10, 2020, the Court granted the parties request to continue the fact discovery deadline as well as the deadline to file a motion for class certification by 60 days. (ECF No. 40.) On March 11, 2020, the Court granted the parties second request to continue the deadline to complete fact discovery deadline and to file a motion for class certification, this time by approximately 3 months. (ECF No. 43.)
On May 29, 2020, the Court granted Defendant's ex parte Application to Stay Case. (ECF No. 55.) The Court indicated that the stay would be lifted upon the docketing of an Order on Defendant's Disqualification Motion. (Id.) After issuing its Order on the Disqualification Motion and lifting the stay on January 4, 2021, which lasted for approximately six months, the Court provided a new deadline to complete fact discovery, which was for limited purposes, as well as provided a new deadline to file a motion for class certification. (ECF Nos. 64, 68.) The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on March 2, 2021. (ECF No. 70.) On March 11, 2021, the Court granted Defendant's ex parte request to modify the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion for class certification, extending the deadlines for Defendant's opposition and Plaintiffs' reply brief by three weeks. (ECF No. 77.)
Further, the Court has already granted requests to continue dates based on the parties' indication that they are engaging in settlement efforts. After the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the parties jointly contacted the Chambers of Judge Skomal on October 1, 2021 to schedule a further Status Conference to discuss expert discovery and the setting of additional pretrial dates. (See ECF Nos. 95, 99.) The Court set this Status Conference for October 6, 2021. (Id.) The parties jointly contacted the Court on October 6, 2021 and requested to have a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Skomal prior to setting expert and pretrial deadlines since the parties indicated that they wanted to engage in settlement efforts before setting these deadlines. (ECF No. 100.)
Based on this representation, the Court set a Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) for October 21, 2021. (ECF Nos. 98, 100.) The parties indicated that “although they have engaged in settlement discussions prior to entry of the order granting class certification, they [had] not exchanged settlement proposals since class certification was granted.” (ECF No. 101 at 2.) The parties then requested to continue the MSC, which they believed would allow them to “to reevaluate their settlement positions in light of class certification and engage in further settlement discussions.” (Id.) On October 18, 2021, the Court granted the parties' joint request to continue the MSC. (ECF No. 102.)
On December 6, 2021, the Court held an MSC, wherein the case did not settle. (ECF No. 106.) The Court then issued a Scheduling Order as to the remaining expert and pretrial deadlines. (Id.) The Court indicated that if the parties' settlement positions change, they may jointly contact Judge Skomal's Chambers. (Id.)
The parties have known about these deadlines since the Court issued its scheduling order after the case did not settle at the MSC, on December 9, 2021. (ECF No. 107.) Since the MSC, the parties have had three months to contact the Court if their settlement positions changed or to engage in their own settlement efforts. However, since the date the Court issued its Scheduling Order regulating expert discovery and other pre-trial proceedings on December 9, 2021 until the date that the parties filed their Joint Motion to modify the schedule on March 7, 2022, the parties have not contacted the Court to conduct an additional settlement conference nor have they have asked for any extensions to conduct additional settlement discussions.
Therefore, the Court finds that the parties have not demonstrated good cause to continue the expert discovery deadline and pretrial motion deadline. Accordingly, the parties' Joint Motion (ECF No. 114) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.