Wellinger Family Trust 1998, The et al v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

Filing 43

ORDER denying 41 Stipulated Motion to Amend Scheduling Order: Discovery due by 1/25/2013, and Dispositive Motions due by 2/14/2013. By Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/6/12.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB
THE WELLINGER FAMILY TRUST 1998;
JULIE WELLINGER, trustee, and
JULIE WELLINGER, individually,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance
company,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the Stipulated Motion to Amend Scheduling Order [Doc. # 41,
filed 11/30/2012] (the “Motion for Extension”), which is DENIED.
This case was commenced on September 30, 2011. A scheduling conference was held on
December 5, 2011. The discovery cut-off was May 31, 2012, and the dispositive motion
deadline was June 29, 2012. Three extensions have been granted, resulting in a discovery cut-off
of November 30, 2012, and a dispositive motion deadline of December 31, 2012. On the
existing discovery cut-off, the parties filed their request for a fourth extension of an additional
four months. If granted, the discovery cut-off would be March 29, 2013, and the dispositive
motion deadline would be April 30, 2013. In support of the request, the parties present a general
description of “some unfortunate roadblocks” which have made discovery difficult. I note,
however, that the parties already have had more than eleven months within which to conduct
their discovery.

A scheduling order may be amended only on a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4). Good cause in this context is defined in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 16:
[T]he court may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause
if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party
seeking the extension. Since the scheduling order is entered early
in the litigation, this standard seems more appropriate than a
“manifest injustice” or “substantial hardship” test.
Advis. Comm. Notes for 1983 Amend.
I am not persuaded that the parties could not complete the necessary discovery within the
more than eleven months already allowed. Consequently, I do not find that good cause exists for
the additional four month extension requested.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1)

The Motion for Extension [Doc. # 41] is DENIED.

(2)

The case schedule is modified to the following extent:
Discovery Cut-Off:

January 25, 2013.

(All discovery must be completed by the discovery cut-off. All
written discovery must be served so that responses are due on or
before the discovery cut-off.)
Dispositive Motions Deadline:
(3)

February 14, 2013.

No further extensions will be granted.

Dated December 6, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2