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)

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-