Bank of America, N.A. v. Caruk Holdings Arkansas, LLC et al

Filing 41

AMENDED AND SUBSTITUTED ORDER re 30 Order, granting Plaintiff's 29 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Further that all parties cooperate fully in completing discovery by this date. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on August 2, 2012. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 11-2096

CARUK HOLDINGS ARKANSAS, LLC;
DENISE L. CARUK; and GORDON
C. CARUK

DEFENDANTS

AMENDED AND SUBSTITUTED ORDER
For its Amended and Substituted Order, entered on this August
2, 2012, nunc pro tunc June 8, 2012, the Court states as follows:
This Amended and Substituted Order, which takes the place of
the Court’s June 8, 2012 Order (document #30), is entered to
correct certain scrivener’s errors, namely the transposition of
the

words

“plaintiff”

and

“defendants.”

All

corrections

are

underlined herein.
* * *
Before the Court is plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion To Extend
Deadline For Discovery (document #29). In this motion, plaintiff
states

that

the

parties

have

been

involved

in

settlement

discussions since Fall, 2011, and as a result, have not completed
discovery.

Indeed,

plaintiff

asserts

that

it

served

interrogatories and requests for production of documents on all
defendants on December 16, 2011, to which they have not yet
responded.
The deadline for completion of discovery is June 8, 2012, and

plaintiff now asks that it be extended until July 31, 2012. Trial
is scheduled for the week of November 5, 2012, but plaintiff
contends that to its knowledge, no pre-trial deadlines would be
affected by the requested extension.
The Court is surprised that the parties have conducted the
case in this manner. It appears that they have engaged in six
months or more of settlement negotiations, while neglecting to
prepare

the

case

for

trial.

Perhaps

even

now

they

are

not

seriously committed to doing so, as plaintiff does not seek to
compel

responses

to

its

outstanding

discovery,

but

only

to

elongate the time period in which to take discovery.
Moreover, contrary to plaintiff’s representation, pre-trial
deadlines would be affected by extending discovery to a little
over two months before the start of trial. Under F.R.C.P. 56(b),
motions for summary judgment can be filed up to 30 days after the
close of discovery unless the Court orders otherwise. When one
figures in the time to respond to such a motion, and to reply to
the response, there would be no time for the Court to consider it
before the start of trial.
Under the circumstances, the Court will grant an extension,
but a much shorter extension than requested -- until July 2, 2012
-- and will direct that all parties cooperate fully in completing
discovery by this date.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion To

-2-

Extend Deadline For Discovery (document #29) is granted, and the
parties are allowed until July 2, 2012, to complete discovery.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties cooperate fully in
completing discovery by this date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-