Advanced Reimbursement Solutions LLC v. Spring Excellence Surgical Hospital LLC et al
Filing
196
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that SESH's motion for an extension of time to complete certain discovery (Doc. 193 ) is DENIED [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 3/6/19. (MAW)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Advanced Reimbursement Solutions LLC,
Plaintiff,
10
No. CV-17-01688-PHX-DWL
ORDER
11
v.
12
Spring Excellence Surgical Hospital LLC, et
al.,
13
14
Defendants.
15
Pending before the Court is Defendant Spring Excellence Surgical Hospital LLC’s
16
(“SESH”) motion for an extension of time to complete certain discovery (Doc. 193), which
17
Plaintiff Advanced Reimbursement Solutions LLC (“ARS”) opposes (Doc. 195). As
18
explained below, the motion will be denied.
19
20
BACKGROUND
This case was filed in May 2017.
(Doc. 1.)
The original scheduling order
21
established a discovery cutoff date of June 15, 2018, and a dispositive motion deadline of
22
July 16, 2018. (Doc. 58.) At SESH’s request, the Court later extended these deadlines by
23
two months, moving the discovery deadline to August 15, 2018, and dispositive motion
24
deadline to September 17, 2018. (Doc. 91.)
25
In June 2018, ARS filed a motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 97.) In
26
response, SESH filed a motion under Rule 56(d) seeking leave to conduct six depositions
27
before responding to the motion. (Doc. 121.) The Court granted this request, giving SESH
28
until September 15, 2018, to complete the specified depositions and 14 days from
1
completion of the depositions to file its response to ARS’s partial summary judgment
2
motion. (Doc. 135.)
3
On August 22, 2018—about three weeks before the September 15, 2018 discovery
4
deadline was set to expire—the Court issued an order staying the case because one of the
5
parties was involved in a bankruptcy proceeding. (Doc. 165.) However, on December 7,
6
2018, the Court lifted the stay because the individual involved in the bankruptcy
7
proceeding was no longer a party in this case. (Doc. 178 at 2.) The Court also informed
8
the parties that it would “not set a deadline for SESH to file its response to the pending
9
summary judgment motion until after hearing from the parties, at the Rule 16 conference,
10
concerning whether additional discovery and depositions are needed for SESH to prepare
11
its response.” (Id. at 3.)
12
Before the Rule 16 case management conference, the parties filed a joint case
13
management report. (Doc. 187.) In it, ARS argued that SESH should have until March
14
29, 2019, to complete the six depositions, while SESH argued that it should have until
15
September 30, 2019, to complete the six depositions. (Id. at 7-9.)
16
On January 23, 2019, the Court held a case management hearing. (Doc. 188.)
17
During this hearing, the Court noted that the original discovery deadlines had already
18
expired and that the case was already more than a year-and-a-half old. Thus, the Court
19
ruled that SESH would need to complete the six depositions by March 29, 2019, and file
20
its response to the partial summary judgment motion by April 12, 2019. (Doc. 189 at 2
21
[“[T]he six depositions . . . shall be completed earlier than the otherwise-applicable fact
22
discovery deadline of April 26, 2019—those six depositions must be completed by March
23
29, 2019.”].) The Court further advised SESH during the hearing that, to the extent it was
24
considering a change in counsel, the Court would not view such a change as providing
25
good cause to alter the new deadlines.
26
DISCUSSION
27
In its motion, SESH requests a one-month extension of the March 29, 2019 deadline
28
for completing the depositions of non-parties Joanna Davis and Devorshia Russell. (Doc.
-2-
1
193.) SESH asserts that an extension is warranted because (1) the two witnesses are only
2
available to be deposed on one day (March 7, 2019) before the deadline expires, and each
3
is only available for three hours on that day, and (2) its new Arizona counsel “lacks a
4
complete file from prior counsel” and is thus unable to provide assistance to the local Texas
5
counsel who will be conducting the depositions. (Id.)
6
ARS opposes the extension request. (Doc. 195.) ARS argues the request should be
7
denied because (1) SESH dragged its feet when attempting to schedule the depositions and
8
hasn’t taken adequate steps to secure the witnesses’ attendance, (2) ARS’s previous
9
concerns related to the deponents’ time constraints have diminished, and (3) SESH’s local
10
counsel in Texas has been involved in this case since at least August 2018 and is well
11
equipped to handle the depositions, and the Court previously warned SESH that a change
12
in counsel would not justify a deadline extension. (Id.)
13
The Court agrees with ARS’s arguments and will deny SESH’s motion. Under Rule
14
16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order “may be modified only
15
for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Rule 16’s good-cause standard “primarily
16
considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. . . . [T]he focus of the inquiry
17
is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not diligent,
18
the inquiry should end.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th
19
Cir. 1992).
20
SESH isn’t entitled to relief under this standard because it hasn’t established that it
21
acted with diligence when attempting to schedule the depositions. To the contrary, the
22
exhibits attached to ARS’s opposition suggest that SESH has displayed a lack of diligence.
23
Soon after the Court issued its revised scheduling order, ARS began prodding SESH to
24
lock down a date for the depositions. (Doc. 195-1 at 4-5 [February 7, 2019 email from
25
ARS’s counsel seeking to “discuss . . . scheduling of the depositions”].) A week and a half
26
later, SESH announced that Davis and Russell were available for depositions on March 7
27
and 8, 2019, respectively. (Doc. 195-1 at 3 [February 18, 2019 8:01 am email from SESH’s
28
counsel].) A few days later, ARS sought confirmation of “the times that the depositions
-3-
1
will begin on March 7 and March 8.” (Doc. 195-1 at 2.) In response, SESH stated for the
2
first time that the depositions were actually going to take place on the same day and that
3
each witness was only available for three hours: “We have set them both for the 7th, with
4
Russell starting at 8:30 and Davis going immediately after. Notably, I have been informed
5
that Russell needs to leave by noon and Davis needs to be done by 3:00 pm . . . .” (Id.)
6
And in a subsequent email exchange, SESH stated that it couldn’t guarantee that ARS’s
7
counsel would have any time to ask follow-up questions during the three-hour deposition
8
blocks. (Doc. 195-1 at 8-9 [“I cannot assure that we will have enough time to complete
9
our questioning at this point much less have time for yours.”].)
10
The Court recognizes that it is sometimes difficult to identify a convenient date for
11
deposing an out-of-state non-party witness. Nevertheless, SESH had plenty of time to do
12
so here—the scheduling order afforded SESH 65 days to complete the depositions.
13
Furthermore, the Court made it abundantly clear, during the scheduling conference, that
14
the March 29, 2019 deposition deadline was a firm deadline. Thus, although Davis and
15
Russell may be making things difficult on SESH (it strains credulity to believe that each
16
witness was only available for a single three-hour block of time between January 2019 and
17
March 2019), SESH could have avoided any timing issues by taking prompt, formal steps
18
to subpoena them—thereby subjecting them to the Court’s enforcement power if they
19
attempted to play games concerning their availability—once the scheduling order was
20
issued. Its failure to do so amounts to a lack of diligence.
21
22
23
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that SESH’s motion for an extension of time to
complete certain discovery (Doc. 193) is DENIED.
Dated this 6th day of March, 2019.
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?