Hull et al v. Marriott International, Inc.

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM / ORDER re Discovery and Schedule. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 10/16/2014. (aos, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
PETER J. MESSITTE

6500 CHERRYWOOD LANE
GREENBELT, MARYLAND 20770
301-344-0632

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Counsel of Record

FROM:

Judge Peter J. Messitte

RE:

Hull, et al. v. Marriott International, Inc.
Civil Case No. PJM 14-328

DATE:

October 16, 2014
***

On October 14, 2014, the Court received a Joint Status Report (Dkt. No. 36). In the Joint Status
Report, the parties asked the Court to clarify whether it intends to hear argument on October 27,
2014 on both the Defendant’s pending Partial Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 10) as well as the
Plaintiffs’ pending Motion to Amend Complaint (Dkt. No. 30). The Court confirms that it
intends to hear argument on both pending Motions at the October 27 hearing.
In the Joint Status Report, the parties disagree as to the scope of the fact discovery that continues
after the October 14, 2014 discovery deadline set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order dated
May 29, 2014 (Dkt. No. 9) (as modified by the Court’s Memorandum Order dated July 9, 2014
(Dkt. No. 23) and Order dated October 1, 2014 (Dkt. No. 35)).
The Court’s July 9 Memorandum Order extended deadlines contained in the May 29 Scheduling
Order as to “the narrow issue of possible testing of Defendant’s software by Plaintiffs as well as
any reasonably related discovery, including expert designations.” The Court’s October 1 Order
granted Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel as to the software used by Defendant’s Group Housing
Department. Per the Court’s July 9 Memorandum Order, then, the discovery deadline for testing
of Defendant’s Group Housing Software by Plaintiffs as well as any reasonably related discovery
is currently January 30, 2015.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to continue fact discovery reasonably related to the claims
involving the Group Housing Department beyond the October 14, 2014 discovery deadline.
Plaintiffs also contend that they are allowed to continue discovery “relating to issues that have
been revealed during recent depositions and recent document production” beyond the October
14, 2014 discovery deadline.

The Court will construe Plaintiffs’ contention as a Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order to
extend the discovery deadline as to issues not reasonably related to claims involving the Group
Housing Department (such as claims involving other positions to which the Plaintiffs allegedly
applied). This Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This Motion may be revisited
pending the resolution of claims involving the Group Housing Department.
Finally, the parties request that the court further extend discovery deadlines beyond those set by
the July 9 Memorandum Order. The parties agree on some but not all deadline dates.
In light of the foregoing, the Court amends the May 29 Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 9) (as
modified by the July 1 Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 23) and the October 1 Order (Dkt. No.
35)) to set the following discovery schedule:
October 14, 2014

Discovery Deadline; Discovery continues as reasonably related to the
claims involving the Defendant’s Group Housing Department.

January 13, 2015

Plaintiffs’ Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures

February 12, 2015

Defendant’s Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures

February 26, 2015

Plaintiffs’ Rebuttal Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures

March 5, 2015

Rule 26(e)(2) supplementation of disclosures and responses

April 6, 2015

Discovery deadline; submission of status report

April 13, 2015

Requests for Admission

May 6, 2015

Dispositive pretrial motions deadline

Despite the informal nature of this ruling, it shall constitute an Order of the Court and the Clerk
is directed to docket it accordingly.

/s/
PETER J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:

Court File