Adams et al v. Nature's Expressions Landscaping, Inc.

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiffs' 62 FIRST MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 5/31/2018.(JJ)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
THOMAS ADAMS, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
NATURE’S EXPRESSIONS
LANDSCAPING INC.,
Defendant.

Civil Case No.
5:16-cv-00098-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

***
More than two years ago, Plaintiffs in this Fair Labor
Standards Act case filed their complaint.

Since then, the case

has taken a routine course in navigating the waters of federal
court.

Discovery has occurred. The parties have briefed a Motion

for Summary Judgment.

Several status conferences have been held,

and depositions taken.

All part and parcel of federal court

litigation.
At this stage in its voyage, the case remains on track.

The

parties indicate they have reached a settlement on the collective
action claims; only individual plaintiffs remain.

And on those

claims, discovery is set to close in a matter of days. Dispositive
motions must be filed within a month, and trial is set for later
this year.

Final resolution is on the horizon.

This is where Plaintiffs wish to take a detour.

Taking that

detour requires a modification of the Scheduling Order.

1

So

Plaintiffs ask the Court to extend discovery deadlines, push back
the time for filing dispositive motions, and vacate the trial date.
[DE 62].

Defendants oppose the motion.

[DE 63].

Defendants argue, it is time for this case to end.

After all,
And as this

court recently emphasized, “[a] scheduling order maintains orderly
proceedings and is ‘not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered,
which can be cavalierly disregarded . . . without peril.’” Century
Indem. Co. v. Begley. Co., 323 F.R.D. 237, 240 (E.D. Ky. 2018)
(quoting Birge v. Dolar Gen Corp., No. 04-2531 B, 2006 WL 133480,
at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 12, 2006)).
disregard the scheduling order.

This Court will not cavalierly

Instead, the Court will stay the

course and keep this case on its current journey.

Thus, for the

reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to
Complete Discovery [DE 62] is DENIED.
I.

Background

This FLSA case involves current and former employees at
Nature’s

Expressions

architecture firm.

Landscaping,

Inc.

(“NEL”),

a

landscape

Several named plaintiffs filed this action on

March 8, 2016, In Jessamine Circuit Court seeking unpaid overtime
wages.

[DE 1].

Plaintiffs allege that NEL assigns each employee

a daily wage and then divides the daily amount by the number of
“quarter days” the employee worked. [DE 1-1, pp. 8–9]. This would
mean that NEL did not pay its employees time-and-a-half for hours
worked in excess of forty, which would violate the FLSA.
2

Defendant removed the case to federal court in March 2016.
[DE 1].

NEL denies the allegations and claims it pays employees

time-and-a-half for all hours worked in excess of eight each day.
If true, NEL would be in compliance with the FLSA.
Originally, Plaintiffs pursued this case as a collective
action.

[DE 1].

Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Conditionally

Certify the Class under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) in June 2016.

[DE 14].

The Court granted that Motion and the opt-in process began.
26].

[DE

Once several groups of plaintiffs filed notices to opt in to

this lawsuit, NEL filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the
alternative, Decertification of the class.

[DE 39].

The Court

granted in part and denied in part that Motion in an October 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order.

[DE 48].

Two months later, the parties submitted a Joint Status Report
with proposed deadlines for the case.

[DE 51].

The Court

considered the Report when it issued a Scheduling Order pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.

[DE 52].

Among other

deadlines, the Scheduling Order sets a June 1, 2018 deadline for
discovery, requires dispositive motions to be filed on or before
July 2, 2018, and sets a trial date for October 2018.

[DE 52].

Since then, the parties have reached an agreement to settle
the collective action claims.
individual plaintiffs remain.

[DE 62].

Only the claims of the

Neither party expressed any concern

with the Scheduling Order until May 29, 2018—three days before
3

discovery was set to close.

[DE 62].

But Plaintiffs contend that

the settlement process took a significant amount of time and they
now need more time for discovery on the individual claims.

[Id.].

Defendants oppose the Motion, arguing that Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated good cause and that an extension would result in
prejudice to NEL.

[DE 63].

The Motion is now ripe for review.
II.

Analysis

Under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
district courts issue scheduling orders in civil cases.

A case

schedule serves many purposes, and it must include a limit on the
time to complete discovery.

Fed R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(a).

Rule 16

“ensure[s] that ‘at some point both the parties and the pleadings
will be fixed.’” Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 906 (6th Cir.
2003) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, 1983 advisory committee’s
notes)).
Rule 16 allows modifications of scheduling orders “only for
good cause and with the judge’s consent.”
16(b)(4).

Fed. R. Civ. P.

“[A] court choosing to modify the schedule upon a

showing of good cause, may do so only if it cannot reasonably be
met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.”
Leary, 349 F.3d at 906.

“The primary measure of Rule 16’s good

cause standard is the moving party’s diligence in attempting to
meet the case management order’s requirements.”

Inge v. Rock Fin.

Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations
4

omitted).

Courts also consider prejudice to the party opposing

the modification.

Id.; see also Ross v. Am. Red Cross, 567 F.

App’x 296, 306 (6th Cir. 2014).

Good cause does not exist where

a plaintiff fails to explain or provides no excuse for his delay.
Leary, 349 F.3d at 907.
Here, Plaintiffs argue that they were unable to meet the
Scheduling

Order

deadlines

because

counsel

“has

devoted

a

significant amount of time in this matter to pursuing and resolving
the collective action claims of all Plaintiffs.”

[DE 62-1, p. 2].

The Motion fails to explain how negotiating a settlement for some
Plaintiffs precluded counsel from meeting the Scheduling Order
deadlines.

In fact, Plaintiffs never explain what diligence they

exercised in attempting to meet the case schedule deadlines. Inge,
281 F.3d at 625. Plaintiffs do not tell the court why the deadlines
could not “reasonably be met.”

Leary, 349 F.3d at 906.

As NEL

argues in its response, Plaintiffs have failed several times to
say whom they wish to depose and on what date.

[DE 63, pp 2–3].

In short, Plaintiffs do not explain why they could not meet the
deadlines

“despite

the

diligence

of

the

party

seeking

the

extension.” Id.
Settling the collective action claims case does not excuse
meeting deadlines or establish good cause.

Plaintiffs filed this

lawsuit more than two years ago.

The Court entered the

[DE 1].

case schedule more than five months ago.
5

[DE 52].

That schedule

incorporated dates proposed by the parties.

And the parties chose

those dates before resolution of the collective action claims.
Thus, the Court fails to see why settlement of claims that were
pending at the time the Court issued the case schedule would
necessitate extended discovery.

If anything, a reduction in the

number of claims involved in this case would lead one to expect
less time for discovery. But now, only three days before discovery
will close, Plaintiffs request an extension.

They will not get

one.
Plaintiffs’ Motion fails not only because they do not explain
why they could not reasonably meet the deadlines despite due
diligence; prejudice also exists here.

Extending discovery by two

months will cause further delay in this case that has dragged for
more than two years.

And it will result in additional time and

expense

Defendants

incurred

create prejudice.

by

(and

Plaintiffs)—factors

that

See Commerce Benefits Group, Inc. v. McKesson

Corp., 326 F. App’x 369, 377–78 (6th Cir. 2009).

And if the Court

extends discovery, it will have to push back dispositive motion
deadline.

The pretrial conferences will have to be moved, and the

trial date changed.

All of this will be done only three days

before Defendants expected discovery to close.

Derailing this

two-year-old case at the eleventh hour would plainly result in
prejudice.
III. Conclusion
6

Scheduling Order deadlines are important, and “parties are
obliged to follow them.”

Century Indem. Co., 323 F.R.D. at 239.

Plaintiffs failed to exercise diligence in attempting to meet the
original deadlines.

Indeed, Plaintiffs had months to ask for an

extension, but instead they ask for more time only days before
discovery will conclude.

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good

cause, and Defendants face certain prejudice.

Thus, their request

fails under Rule 16, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Extension of
Time to Complete Discovery [DE 62] is DENIED.
This the 31st day of May, 2018.

7