A Love of Food I, LLC v. Maoz Vegetarian USA, Inc. et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr on 2/7/2012. (rss, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION

A LOVE OF FOOD I, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 10-cv-02352-AW

MAOZ VEGETARIAN USA, INC.,
Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is Defendant Maoz Vegetarian USA. Inc. (“Maoz”)’s Motion
for Reconsideration of the December 14, 2011 Order by United States Magistrate Judge Jillyn K.
Schulze denying Maoz’s request to compel discovery. See Doc. No. 37. Maoz has not filed a
timely Reply to Plaintiff A Love of Food I, LLC (“LOF”)’s Response and thus this matter is ripe
for review. See Loc. R. 105.2.a. The Court has reviewed the motions and all supporting
documents and finds no hearing is necessary. See MD. LOC. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2010). For the
reasons articulated below, the Court DENIES Maoz’s Motion.

I.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
LOF brought this action against Maoz on August 25, 2010, and the Court’s Scheduling

Order set the discovery deadline for November 21, 2011. Doc. Nos. 1, 12. On July 19, 2011, the
Court denied a motion by Maoz to extend discovery, noting that both Parties were expected to
comply with the original deadlines. Doc. No. 15.

1

On November 28, 2011, the Court referred this action to Magistrate Judge Schulze after
receiving LOF’s Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(d) for failure to appear for deposition.
Doc. No. 30. On December 13, 2011, Judge Schulze ruled that discovery had concluded, and on
the same day, Maoz sent a letter to Judge Schulze seeking reconsideration of that ruling. See
Doc. No. 35. The letter stated that Maoz would be severely prejudiced if it was prohibited from
taking a key deposition and that LOF had engaged in dilatory tactics and been uncooperative
during discovery. Doc. No. 35. Judge Schulze ruled that Maoz failed to show good cause to
amend the Scheduling Order. The Judge noted that the deposition sought by Maoz had initially
been set prior to the discovery deadline, but Maoz had sought an extension in response to LOF’s
refusal to shorten the thirty-day notice period for producing documents. See Doc. Nos. 32; 36, 37
Ex. 1 at 10. Additionally, Judge Schulze reasoned that Maoz had at no point prior to her ruling
sought her consent to extend the discovery deadline. Doc. No. 36.
On December 28, 2011, Maoz filed a Motion for Reconsideration to set aside Judge
Schulze’s ruling. Doc. No. 37. Therein, Maoz argues that it had good cause to seek an extension
because it relied on a phone call from LOF stating that there would be further discussions about
extending discovery, as well as an LOF e-mail stating: “I will prepare and email to you for
review a mutual extension to Judge Williams’ Scheduling Order so that both sides have
sufficient time to hold depositions … . ” See Doc. No. 37 Ex. 1 at 7.

II.

ANALYSIS
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may submit objections to a

Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive pretrial motion and seek that the Order be set
aside in whole or in part if it is contrary to the law or clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see

2

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A ruling is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to
support it, the reviewing Court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.” Tafas v. Dudas, 530 F. Supp. 2d. 786, 792 (E.D. Va. 2008). The alteration of a
Magistrate Judge’s non-dispositive pretrial Order is very difficult to justify; yet, the abuse of
discretion standard that applies to discovery-related matters need not curtail the District Court’s
power to make necessary changes in a Magistrate Judge’s ruling. See id.
A party must show good cause and obtain the Judge's consent if it seeks to modify the
Court’s Scheduling Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Good cause exists where a party has
diligently made efforts to meet court-imposed deadlines. Tawwaab v. Va. Linen Serv., Inc., 729
F. Supp. 2d. 757, 768 (D. Md. 2010).
There is nothing in Maoz’s Motion or supporting papers establishing that Judge Schulze’s
ruling is contrary to the law or clearly erroneous. Maoz never sought Judge Schulze’s consent to
extend discovery in the first instance and thus failed to meet the good cause requirement of Rule
16(b)(4). Additionally, Maoz fails to provide sufficient evidence to convince the Court that a
mistake has been committed or that Judge Schulze abused her discretion. Maoz’s reliance on
LOF’s representations, on its own, is not enough evidence to satisfy the high standard that must
be met to set aside Judge Schulze’s Order.

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Maoz’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. A separate

Order will follow.
February 7, 2012
Date

/s/
Alexander Williams, Jr.
United States District Judge

3