Kuzmech v. Werner Ladder Co et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 46 Third Motion for Enlargement of the Scheduling Order; denying 47 Motion to Compel Discovery Answers; granting in part and denying in part 49 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion. See attached Order. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on June 11, 2012. (Slitt, M.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
RUTH J. KUZMECH, ET AL
WERNER LADDER CO., ET AL
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
There are three motions currently pending before the Court.
Plaintiffs' Third Motion for Enlargement of the Scheduling Order
(Dkt. # 46) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
It is granted
only to the extent the plaintiffs seek an extension of time until
September 1, 2012 to conduct the depositions of disclosed expert
In all other respects, the motion is denied. Thus, to
the extent the plaintiffs seek an extension of time for other
discovery, including fact depositions and supplemental discovery
responses, the motion is denied. The plaintiffs have failed to
establish that good cause exists for such an extension.
agrees with the defendants that the plaintiff had ample time, more
than twenty seven months, to conduct discovery or file a motion to
compel during the first three scheduling orders issued by the
The plaintiffs also did not request an extension of the
current scheduling order until the day after the deadline for
filing dispositive motions under such order. Most importantly, the
accordance with the current scheduling order, timely filed their
motion for summary judgment on May 1, 2012. The defendants, having
complied with this Court's order to file a dispostive motion by May
1, 2012, would be unfairly prejudiced were the Court to reopen
discovery at this time.
Contrary to the arguments of the plaintiffs, there is no basis
for their assertion that they "have been unable to take fact
depositions of defense fact witnesses because no fact witnesses
representative in their Initial Disclosures, dated June 1, 20120,
who would likely testify at the trial of this matter.
counsel also offered, via two separate letters, this witness for a
deposition as a fact witness.
The plaintiff chose not to depose
the tendered witness, issue a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, or
file a motion to compel with respect to alleged deficiencies in the
defendants' discovery responses within the discovery period, and
instead waited to file a motion for extension of time until after
the deadline had expired and defendants had already filed their
defendants cannot be overlooked.
For the same reasons, plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery
responses to the plaintiffs' discovery requests on December 20,
The plaintiffs then waited more than four months, until
after the discovery deadline ended and the defendants had filed
their motion for summary judgment, before filing a motion to
The prejudice to the defendants is readily apparent.
While the defendants' discovery responses may have required some
degree of supplementation had a timely motion to compel been filed,
they are more than sufficient for the plaintiffs to readily proceed
with the case.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. #49) to file a
response to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part.
It is granted only to the extent
plaintiffs' counsel requires additional time to file his opposition
papers due to his trial schedule. The plaintiff's opposition shall
be filed no later than July 12, 2012.
For the reasons addressed
depositions, will be permitted during this time period.
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this
day of June, 2012.
/s/ Thomas P. Smith
THOMAS P. SMITH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?