Bader Farms, Inc. et al v. Monsanto Company

Filing 99

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 87 MOTION for Extension of: Time to Serve Its Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Disclosures on Plaintiff filed by Defendant BASF Corporation - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that BASF's motion for an extension of time to serve its initial disclosures (#87) is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 11/13/2017. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
BADER FARMS, INC. and
BILL BADER
Plaintiffs,
v.
MONSANTO CO. and
BASF CORP.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-CV-299-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant BASF Corp.’s motion for an
extension of time to serve its initial disclosures (#87).
Plaintiffs originally filed this suit against only Monsanto. On October 20, 2017,
plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (#77), where they named BASF as a
defendant. Plaintiffs served BASF on October 24, 2017. BASF’s response to the Second
Amended complaint initially was due twenty-one days later, on November 14, 2017. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). BASF moved for an extension of time (#86), and this Court
granted the motion (#89). BASF’s response to the Second Amended Complaint is now
due on December 4, 2017. BASF’s initial disclosures are due on November 24, 2017,
thirty days after it was served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(D). BASF asks for an
additional fifty-five days to serve its initial disclosures.
BASF claims there is good cause to extend its time to serve initial disclosures
because the Second Amended Complaint is lengthy and complex; its 643 paragraphs span
1

113 pages. BASF also claims that its counsel was recently retained and needs additional
time to investigate the plaintiffs’ allegations. BASF argues that the extension is
reasonable because both the plaintiffs and Monsanto had roughly eight months after the
case was initially filed to serve their initial disclosures.
Plaintiffs oppose the motion. They claim that BASF made no effort to contact
plaintiffs’ counsel about this extension. Plaintiffs also argue that Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(1)(D) “already contemplates any alleged hardship on a party that is later
joined/served and has concluded that 30 days is a reasonable time frame to serve initial
disclosures.” (#88 at 3, ¶16). Plaintiffs claim the proposed fifty-five-day extension will
subject them to an undue hardship.
The fifty-five-day extension is not unreasonable in light of the circumstances in
this case, and the motion will be granted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that BASF’s motion for an extension of time to
serve its initial disclosures (#87) is GRANTED.
So ordered this

13th

day of November, 2017.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2