Clarendon America Insurance Company et al v. R.E.P. Custom Builders Incorporated et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying Defendants' 67 Motion. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 5/10/2022. (See Order for details.) (LFIG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Clarendon America Insurance Company, et al., 10 Plaintiffs, No. CV-20-08078-PCT-DJH ORDER 11 12 13 v. R.E.P. Custom Builders Incorporated, et al., Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Depose Plaintiffs’ 16 Corporate Representative(s) After Discovery Cutoff Date (Doc. 67). Plaintiffs have filed 17 a Response in Opposition (Doc. 69), and Defendants have filed a Reply (Doc. 71). The 18 Court denies the Motion because Defendants have not demonstrated diligence in seeking 19 discovery. 20 Under the Court’s prior Order, discovery in this matter was due to close by August 21 13, 2021, and dispositive motions were due by December 10, 2021. (Doc. 53). On 22 September 14, 2021, Plaintiff Praetorian Specialty Insurance Company filed a Motion for 23 Summary Judgment (Doc. 57). Also on September 14, Defendants filed a Motion to 24 Extend Discovery Deadlines (Doc. 58). The Court denied the Motion for lacking good 25 cause, but it granted leave to refile once the Motion for Summary Judgment was ripe, which 26 it is now. (Doc. 63). Such leave was granted under the understanding that both parties 27 agreed some expense may be saved depending on the Motion for Summary Judgment’s 28 outcome. (Id.) 1 To amend a scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 16(b)(4). This standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 3 amendment.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 4 “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite 5 the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory 6 committee’s notes (1983 amendment)). 7 Defendants seek to depose Plaintiffs’ corporate representatives, whom Defendants 8 represent were not deposed earlier because Defendants “did not have the complete claims 9 and underwriting files” related to this matter. (Doc. 67 at 3). Previously, the Court found 10 that Defendants did not demonstrate diligence in acquiring these files. (Doc. 63 at 2). 11 Defendants have presented no other justification showing that they diligently sought these 12 proposed depositions. Therefore, the Court sees no reason to change its finding that 13 Defendants have not demonstrated diligence. 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 67) is DENIED. 16 Dated this 10th day of May, 2022. 17 18 19 20 Honorable Diane J. Humetewa United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?