Khan et al v. Bai et al

Filing 30

RULING denying 19 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 9/17/09. (LSM, ) Modified on 9/21/2009 to edit text (LSM, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MUKHTAR KHAN, ET AL VERSUS BAI JINSONG, ET AL CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 08-263-FJP-SCR

RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Before the court is the Defendants' Motion for

Reconsideration. opposed.1

Record document number 15.

The motion is

Defendants seek reconsideration of the Ruling on Motion to Amend Scheduling Order issued January 26, 2009.2 In that ruling,

the court found that the plaintiff had shown good cause to extend the scheduling order deadlines, but there was no good cause to extend the deadlines for the defendants.3 The memoranda filed in connection with this motion show that the original ruling is correct. As explained by the plaintiff, the defendants have not diligently pursued the discovery they claim to need. A party cannot manufacture good cause by waiting until the

virtually the end of the discovery period and then assert that it cannot complete its discovery in the time remaining.

Record document number 20. Defendants filed a supplemental supporting memorandum. Record document number 25. Plaintiff filed a supplemental opposition memorandum. Record document number 28.
2 3

1

Record document number 17.

Rule 16, Fed.R.Civ.P., requires a showing of good cause to extend a scheduling order deadline.

Insofar as the plaintiff's Rule 35, Fed.R.Civ.P., examination is concerned, the plaintiff agreed to extend the time for

production of the report required by Rule 35.4 relief is warranted.

No additional

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration is denied. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, September 17, 2009.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Record document number 28, p. 2. 2