Humphrey et al v. Escalera Resources Co

Filing 37

MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 4/19/16. The court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Expert Witness Deadlines 29 on the basis that there is no showing of excusable neglect to account for Plaintiffs missing their deadline for initial expert disclosures by almost two weeks. (bsimm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00769-RM-NYW
ALAN EUGENE HUMPHREY, and
WYOMING GTL, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ESCALERA RESOURCES CO., a Maryland Corporation, and
DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs Alan Eugene Humphrey and Wyoming
GTL, LLC’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Expert Witness
Deadlines (the “Motion”). [#29, filed Mar. 28, 2016]. The Motion is before this Magistrate
Judge pursuant to the Order Referring Case dated April 14, 2015 [#4] and the Memorandum
dated March 28, 2016 [#30].
Plaintiffs request a 60-day extension of discovery in order to accommodate expert
discovery. [#29 at 2]. Plaintiffs state that they have completed significant discovery, but
additional fact witnesses remain to be deposed. [Id.]. Plaintiffs argue that these fact depositions
must be completed prior to expert disclosures to give the experts time to review the results of fact
discovery before presenting their reports and opinions. [Id.]. Plaintiffs represent that they have
reviewed 16,000 pages of documents they received from Defendant and are scheduled to take the
depositions of three of Defendant’s former officers and employees during the second and third
weeks of April. [Id. at 3].
Defendant opposes the Motion on the grounds that Plaintiffs have not diligently pursued
retaining expert witnesses, and their own dilatory actions have caused the need for the extension
they now seek. See [#32]. Defendant also argues that the Motion is procedurally improper
because the deadline for expert disclosures was March 16, 2016, but Plaintiffs did not file their
Motion requesting an extension of the expert deadline until March 28, 2016. [#32 at 3].
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied because they have made no showing of
excusable neglect in requesting a 60-day extension of case deadlines well after the main deadline

at issue has passed.
The court agrees with Defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B)(2) provides:
Extending Time
(1) In General. When an act must be done within a specified time, the court may for
good cause, extend the time:
***
(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of
excusable neglect
Here, Plaintiffs request a 60-day extension of the expert deadline from March 16, 2016 to
May 16, 2016, see [#29 at 7], in a Motion dated March 28, 2016. However, Plaintiffs do not even
attempt to address how their belated request for this extension is due to excusable neglect. In
addition, the Practice Standards of the presiding judge, the Honorable Raymond P. Moore
specifically provide “[t]o be granted, such motions require a showing of good cause. Unless the
circumstances are unanticipatable and unavoidable, the following do not constitute good cause:
inconvenience to counsel or parties, press of other business, scheduling conflicts (especially when
more than one attorney has entered an appearance for a party), or agreements by counsel.” Moore
Civ. Practice Standard IV.J.
Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend
Expert Witness Deadlines [#29] on the basis that there is no showing of excusable neglect to
account for Plaintiffs missing their deadline for initial expert disclosures by almost two weeks.

DATED: April 19, 2016