Landry et al v. Golden Corral Corporation

Filing 31

RULING denying 22 Motion to Compel Complete Discovery Responses and 25 Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 03/24/2014. (NLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

VERA JANE LANDRY AND
PERCY JAMES LANDRY
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 13-92-JJB-SCR
GOLDEN CORRAL CORPORATION
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
and
RULING ON MOTION TO EXTEND SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES
Before the court is the plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Complete
Discovery Responses.
opposed.1

Record document number 22.

The motion is

Also before the court is the plaintiffs’ Motion to

Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines.

Record document number 25.

Defendant filed a response.2
The deadline for completing fact discovery and filing motions
to compel fact discovery was October 31, 2013.

Plaintiffs filed

their motion to compel on February 26, 2014 - nearly four months
after

the

extension
deadline.
denied.3

deadline.
of

the

fact

Plaintiff
discovery

never

sought

or

obtained

completion/motion

to

an

compel

Defendant sought an extension, but its motion was
As explained in the Ruling on Motion to Amend Scheduling

Order which denied the defendant’s motion:

1

Record document number 28.

2

Record document number 29.

3

Record document number 20, motion; record document number
21, ruling.

... the parties cannot unilaterally extend the Scheduling
Order by agreement when doing so would interfere with the
time set for completing discovery.
Rule 29(b),
Fed.R.Civ.P.
A party’s informal extension of a
scheduling order deadline that would interfere with the
time set for completing discovery is granted at the
party’s risk.
Certainly as to the discovery requests the plaintiffs served
on September 20, 2013 and before, there is no apparent reason why
a motion to compel discovery and/or a motion to extend the deadline
could not have been filed by October 31, 2013.
Plaintiffs sought a five month extension of the fact discovery
completion deadline (from October 31, 2013 to March 31, 2014),
nearly a six month extension of their deadline to produce expert
reports (from October 15, 2013 to April 10, 2014),

about the same

extension of the deadline for the defendant to produce its expert
reports (from November 15, 2013 to April 30, 2014), more than a
four month extension of the deadline to complete expert discovery
(from January 3, 2014 to May 15, 2014), and a four month extension
of the dispositive/Daubert motion filing deadline (from January 31,
2014 to May 31, 2014).

The basis for the motion is essentially the

parties’ agreement to continue with fact discovery, including
depositions, past the deadline set in the Scheduling Order, and the
plaintiffs’

subsequent

dissatisfaction

with

the

defendant’s

responses to their written discovery requests.
As already explained, the parties’ agreement engage in postdeadline discovery was not approved by the court.

While the court

generally does not oppose the parties voluntarily engaging in some

2

post-deadlines

discovery

(e.g.,

exchanging

documents/data/

information or taking a fact or expert witness deposition after the
deadline), they generally do so in a manner that does not result in
their failure to meet subsequent deadlines.

They are not expected

to involve the court in resolving disputes that may arise from
their voluntary post-deadline discovery.
Finally, contrary to the assertion in the plaintiffs’ motion,
the court did not request a further explanation of the parties
discovery efforts in the Ruling on Motion to Amend Scheduling
Order.

Rather, the court explained that the defendant failed to

provide sufficient information to support finding good cause, as
required

by

Rule

16,

Fed.R.Civ.P.

The

time

to

provide

the

information needed for the court to find good cause was when the
defendant filed its motion to extend the deadlines - not a month
later.
Accordingly,

the

plaintiffs’

Motion

to

Compel

Complete

Discovery Responses, and their Motion to Extend Scheduling Order
Deadlines, are both denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, March 24, 2014.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3