Traul et al v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 21 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 5/21/2014. (gc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JOHN TRAUL and NICKI TRAUL,
a/k/a NATIONWIDE MUTUAL
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendants have filed a Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Extend Discovery and
Dispositive Motion Deadlines (ECF 21). It proposes extensions of 30 days each of the current
deadlines of May 15 and May 30, 2014, respectively for discovery and dispositive motions.
Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The Court has reviewed the briefing of the parties, including
numerous exhibits. They address collateral issues about disclosures and discovery. But they do
not adequately support the proposed need for extension of the deadlines. For the following
reasons the Court denies the motion.
In support of their motion, Defendants itemize several topics not covered in detail by the
discovery deposition of its corporate representative Joshua Marshall, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 30(b)(6). They have apparently provided Plaintiffs with additional information and
identification of persons who have relevant knowledge of those topics. The motion itself does
not clarify what specific discovery Plaintiffs now want to pursue. Nor does the briefing explain
its possible relevance to any dispositive motion.
Plaintiffs oppose the motion. They contend Defendants have provided the additional
information inexcusably late, even considering the unfortunate circumstances of recent illness
and incapacitation suffered by opposing counsel. Opposing the motion in its entirety, they
express no intent to pursue additional discovery or to need it for any dispositive motion. They
argue instead that Defendants should not be allowed at this late date to supplement their
disclosures by adding witnesses and changing the information provided by the testimony of Mr.
Marshall. Plaintiffs request that, if the motion be granted, “. . . that Defendants’ new witnesses
not previously disclosed be excluded and Defendants be prohibited from re-designating their
30(b)(6) witness to alter or revise the record as established herein.” ECF 25 at 8. Plaintiffs also
note that on May 12, 2014, three days before the close of discovery, Defendants served
supplemental discovery responses and disclosures.
By reply memorandum Defendants argue that the testimony provided by Mr. Marshall
complied with Rule 30(b)(6). They contend that the additional information more recently
provided does not replace his testimony, but supplements it. They suggest that any lateness in
providing it was justifiable and not intentional. They emphasize that in any event Plaintiffs have
suffered no prejudice by any failure to comply with the deadlines set by the Scheduling Order.
They note the trial date of November 4, 2014, more than five months away.
As thus described, the parties have converted a simple motion for extension of two
deadlines into an argument about a collateral issue as to the viability of supplemental disclosures.
Neither in their motion nor in their reply do Defendants identify what, if any, additional
discovery they would pursue. If anything, their argument seems to suggest that the motion is to
benefit the Plaintiffs. But Plaintiffs express no intent for further discovery and no need for more
time for dispositive motions. None of the briefing, furthermore, shows any need for additional
time to file dispositive motions. The Court declines to infer a need.
For the foregoing reasons the Court denies the motion. In so doing, it also declines to
convert a simple motion for extension of two deadlines into a collateral motion to determine the
viability of any supplemental disclosures or responses to discovery. If that is indeed an issue, the
appropriate means to address it is by separate motion that adequately addresses the relevant
issues, including any requirement to show prejudice, as noted by Defendants in their reply
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated in Kansas City, Kansas on this 21st day of May, 2014.
S/Gerald L. Rushfelt
Gerald L. Rushfelt
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?