Timmons v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

Filing 19

MINUTE ORDER denying 16 Motion to Extend Discovery by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 10/30/12.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 11–cv–03408–CMA–KMT

CHARLOTTE TIMMONS,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery” (Doc. No. 16, filed Oct. 29, 2012) is DENIED for
failure to show good cause pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). See also
Pumpco, Inc. v. Schenker Int’l, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 667, 668 (D. Colo. 2008) (“‘good cause’ means
that scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite a party’s diligent efforts.”) Although Plaintiff
argues that discovery should be extended because she believes that “additional witnesses in the
Denver area should be deposed,” Plaintiff does not specify who these proposed deponents are, or
why she was unable to take their depositions prior to the existing discovery cut-off.
Furthermore, while Plaintiff’s counsel may have “had an extended vacation out of the court, and
a trial thereafter that ran longer than expected,” District Judge Christine M. Arguello’s practice
standards explicitly state that “[u]nless the circumstances are truly unanticipated and
unavoidable . . . pressure of other business[] and scheduling conflicts” do not constitute good
cause for an extension of time. CMA Civ. Practice Standards III.D.1. Plaintiff has not argued
that either of these circumstances were unanticipated or unavoidable.
Dated: October 30, 2012