Infinity Fluids, Corp. v. General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc.
Filing
59
Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy: ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 38 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order; granting 40 MOTION to Enforce re 36 Order on Motion to Compel. (Belpedio, Lisa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
INFINITY FLUIDS, CORP.,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-40089-TSH
ORDER
May 1, 2015
Hennessy, M.J.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by an order of reference (Docket #43), this matter
was referred to me for a ruling on Plaintiff Infinity Fluids’ (“Infinity”) Motion to Amend
Scheduling Order (Docket #38), and Infinity’s Motion to Enforce Judge Hennessy’s December
17, 2014 Discovery Order (Docket #40). In ruling on these motions, the court also considers an
Omnibus Opposition filed by Defendant General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. (“GDLS”)
(Docket #42); Infinity’s reply brief (Docket #48); and, GDLS’s sur-reply brief (Docket #52).
The parties appeared before me at a hearing on May 1, 2015 and, after consideration of the
pleadings and oral argument, I make the followings orders consistent with my rulings in court:
The Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order
In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and L.R. 16.1(g), a scheduling order may be
modified “only upon a showing of good cause supported by affidavits, other evidentiary
materials, or references to pertinent portions of the record.” L.R. 16.1(g). “The ‘good cause’ test
requires a showing that despite due diligence by the party seeking the extension, the deadline in
the scheduling order could not reasonably be met.” McLaughlin v. McDonald’s Corp., 304
F.R.D. 45, 50, n.4 (D. Mass. 2001). The court is satisfied that Infinity has been diligent in
conducting discovery.1 The motion to amend the scheduling order is therefore GRANTED-INPART, so that the current deadlines will be extended sixty (60) days from today. Infinity had
requested 120 days, but based on the representations by counsel at today’s hearing, the court is
satisfied that an extension of sixty (60) days from today will be sufficient time for Infinity to
conduct its outstanding discovery. Accordingly, the new, further amended deadlines are as
follows:
Discovery completed
July 1, 2015
Plaintiff’s expert designation
August 17, 2015
Plaintiff’s expert deposition completed
October 14, 2015
Defendant’s expert designation
September 14, 2015
Defendant’s expert deposition completed
October 14, 2015
Dispositive motions due
November 4, 2015
1
The court notes that Infinity first served its discovery requests on September 5, 2014. GDLS
sent its responses on October 9, 2014. On October 22, 2014, Infinity responded by letter to
GDLS identifying deficiencies with the responses. Once the parties conferred and were unable
to resolve their discovery dispute, Infinity filed a motion to compel on November 10, 2014. The
court held a hearing on December 16, 2014, and ordered GDLS to produce some of the discovery
in dispute by January 16, 2015. Infinity sent GDLS more correspondence in January 2015 to
further clarify the categories of information that it sought. Infinity then moved, on February 5,
2015, to further amend the scheduling order. The court is satisfied that Infinity has more than
established ‘good cause’ to obtain an extension of the deadlines.
2
The Motion to Enforce the December 17, 2014 Order
The December 17, 2014 Order (Docket #36) stemmed from Infinity’s motion to compel
GDLS to respond to varied discovery requests, including primarily those seeking information
relating to Infinity’s damages claims. The court granted the motion (in-part) and ordered GDLS
to respond to the requests as they pertain “only to the ‘GDLS Trade Study’ and the ‘GDLS
Heating Application,’” as opposed to the entire Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle project. (Id.).
The court ordered GDLS to supplement its responses on or before January 16, 2015. (Id.).
Citing numerous “deficiencies” in the responses, Infinity filed another motion, this time to
enforce the December 17, 2014 Order. (Docket #40). As noted at today’s hearing, that motion is
GRANTED. Accordingly,
With respect to Infinity’s Document Request Nos. 21-22, 34-37, 39, 50-56, 59-61, 63,
66-68, on or before May 15, 2015, GDLS is ORDERED to serve an affidavit (or
affidavits), signed under oath by the appropriate officer(s) or agent(s), outlining which
information or documents could not be produced, or do not exist, and why. (Infinity’s
Document Requests were submitted at Docket #40-1, p. 14)
With respect to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, on or before May 15, 2015,
GDLS is ORDERED to serve revised, specific answers to these interrogatories.
(Infinity’s Interrogatories were submitted at Docket #40-2, p. 2). For any interrogatory to
which GDLS answers by referring Infinity to documents it has produced, GDLS must
specify the documents in sufficient detail to enable Infinity to locate and identify the
documents that support its answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).
On or before May 15, 2015, GDLS is ordered to produce to Infinity the “statement of
work,” or “scope of work,” referenced in the 2008 EFV SDD-2 Contract.
On or before May 15, 2015, GDLS is ORDERED to produce to Infinity, all
invoices/vouchers with their supporting continuation sheets, for the time period June
2009 – June 2010.
3
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff=s Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (Docket
#38) be GRANTED-IN-PART, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Judge Hennessy’s December
17, 2014 Discovery Order (Docket #40) be GRANTED. Further, GDLS is ORDERED to
comply with its aforementioned discovery obligations on or before May 15, 2015.
/s/ David H. Hennessy
David H. Hennessy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?