Kester et al v. Rieck et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 19 Motion to Continue Progression. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 11/9/17. (df)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DENNIS KESTER, et al.,
SCOTT RIECK, et al.,
Case No. 17-2222-DDC-KGG
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE PROGRESSION
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Continue Progression” (Doc.
19), which the Court notes should have been titled as a motion to amend the
Scheduling Order. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
The present matter was initially filed in Kansas state court in January 2017
and removed by Defendants to federal court on April 18, 2017. (See Doc. 1 and
attachments.) Plaintiff alleges negligence, battery, and violations of due process in
regard to injuries he allegedly sustained during a wrestling practice while he was a
student with the Pittsburg, Kansas, School District. (See generally Doc. 1-1.)
The Scheduling Order in this case was entered on June 9, 2017, and included
a deadline of September 1, 2017, for Plaintiffs to designate retained experts. (Doc.
14, at 4.) The parties engaged in mediation of the case on October 13, 2017. (Doc.
18.) The parties notified the Court of this mediation on September 13, 2017 (Doc.
18), almost two weeks after the expiration of Plaintiff’s deadline to designate
Plaintiffs bring the present motion “for an Order Pursuant to Rule 16
continuing the deadlines in the Order Setting Final Schedule for Progression of
Case (Doc. 14).” (Doc. 19, at 1.) Defense counsel does not object to the motion
except as to Plaintiff’s deadline to designate retained experts. (Id.)
The deadline sought to be extended expired on September 1, 2017, more
than six weeks before the present motion was filed. Plaintiffs argue they have
established “good cause” for the requested extension pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16.
Plaintiff’s counsel indicates he had a trial in the middle of August 2017 and
subsequently focused on preparing for mediation in this case, which was scheduled
for October 13, 2017. (Doc. 19-2, at 1.)
Rather than devote time and money to retain experts, I
decided that Plaintiffs’ interests would be better served to
focus on preparing the case for mediation in hopes that
we could resolve the matter. As such, we did not retain or
disclose a medical expert in this matter which were due
by Plaintiffs on September 1, 2017.
(Id., at 1-2.)
Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request to extend their deadline to designate
retained experts, noting the motion was filed more than 45 days after the expiration
of the deadline. In support of their position, Defendants cite Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b),
which states that time to perform an act may be extended after the expiration of the
related deadline where the failure to comply with that deadline was the result of
“excusable neglect.” Similarly, under D. Kan. Rule 6.1(a):
All motions for an extension of time to perform an act
required or allowed to be done within a specified time
whether there has been prior consultation with
other parties and the views of other parties;
the date when the act was first due;
if prior extensions have been granted, the number
of extensions granted and the date of expiration of
the last extension; and
the cause for the requested extension. Parties must
file the motion before the specified time expires.
Absent a showing of excusable neglect, the court
will not grant extensions requested after the
specified time expires.
(Emphasis added.) Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have failed to establish
excusable neglect to extend the deadline at issue. The Court agrees.
As stated above, Plaintiffs’ deadline to disclose retained experts was
September 1, 2017. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs’ counsel was engaged in a trial
in another case from August 14 to August 23, 2017. The Court acknowledges that
this may have made it difficult for counsel to have focused his attention on the
present matter in the time leading up to the expert deadline. This does not,
however, provide a reasonable excuse for counsel’s failure to, at a minimum, file a
motion to extend the expert disclosure deadline at some point between August 24
and September 1, 2017.
Plaintiff’s arguments also fail under the “good cause” standard to modify a
Scheduling Order cited by them and set by Fed.R.Civ.P. 16. Section (b)(4) of that
Rule mandates that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with
the judge’s consent.”
To establish ‘good cause’ the moving party must show
that the scheduling order’s deadline could not have been
met with diligence. Parker v. Central Kansas Medical
Center, 178 F.Supp.2d 1205, 1210 (D.Kan.2001);
Denmon v. Runyon, 151 F.R.D. 404, 407 (D.Kan.1993).
‘This rule gives trial courts ‘wide latitude in entering
scheduling orders,’ and modifications to such orders are
reviewed for abuse of discretion.’ In re Daviscourt, 353
B.R. 674, (B.A.P. 10th Cir.2006) (citing Burks v. Okla.
Publ'g Co., 81 F.3d 975, 978-79 (10th Cir.1996)).
Grieg v. Botros, No. 08-1181-EFM-KGG, 2010 WL 3270102, at *3 (D.Kan. Aug.
12, 2010). It is well-established in this District that motions to modify a
scheduling order focus “on the diligence of the party seeking to modify the
scheduling order.” Id. (citing Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Nicor, Inc., 245 F.R.D.
524, 528 (D.N.M.2007) (internal citations omitted)).
Delay is to be considered undue, and thus an appropriate basis to deny a
proposed amendment, “when the party filing the motion has no adequate
explanation for the delay.” Minter v. Prime Equipment Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1206
(10th Cir.2006) (citing Frank v. U.S. West, 3 F.3d 1357, 1365–66 (10th Cir.1993);
Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir.1994) (holding that
“unexplained delay alone justifies the district court’s discretionary decision”); Fed.
Ins. Co. v. Gates Learjet Corp., 823 F.2d 383, 387 (10th Cir.1987) (holding that
“[c]ourts have denied leave to amend in situations where the moving party cannot
demonstrate excusable neglect. For example, courts have denied leave to amend
where the moving party was aware of the facts on which the amendment was based
for some time prior to the filing of the motion to amend”).
The Court agrees with Defendant that “Plaintiffs have failed to establish that
the expert deadline ‘could not have been met with diligence’ or that the delay is not
‘chargeable’ to them.” (Doc. 20, at 5.) Plaintiffs’ only explanation – that they
chose to focus on preparing for mediation rather than devote time and money to
retain experts – amounts to a tactical decision, not “good cause” or “excusable
neglect” to miss the deadline. The Court notes that Defendants have “agreed to
allow plaintiffs to designate the non-retained, treating providers, which allows the
case to proceed on the merits as it should.” (Id., at 5-6.)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue
Progression (Doc. 19) is DENIED.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 9th day of November, 2017.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE
KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge
Because the filing of the present motion suspended certain unexpired deadlines by
agreement, the Court will file an Amended Scheduling Order adjusting the unexpired
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?