DLJ Mortgage Capital v. Lemon Creek Ranch et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying 41 Motion to Vacate the scheduling order; denying 41 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. DLJ Mortgage shall respond to Defendants' 5/17/2013 supplemental discovery requests no later than 6/21/2013, if it has not done so already. Signed by Chief Judge Dana L. Christensen on 6/5/2013. (dle)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC.

CV 12–55–BU–DLC

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

LEMON CREEK RANCH, LLC, and
REID ROSENTHAL,
Defendants.
Defendants Lemon Creek Ranch, LLC, and Reid Rosenthal (collectively,
“Defendants”) have filed a motion to vacate the current scheduling order “as it
relates to discovery” and enlarge the time for discovery by four to five months. As
Defendants recognize in their reply brief, the requested relief would also require
the Court to vacate the other deadlines the parties agreed to, including the trial
date. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ motion is denied.
I.
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendants’ motion and briefs
do not comply with the Local Rules. They are not in 14-point font and the briefs

do not include certificates of compliance as required under Rule 7.1. Nor is the
exhibit identified and electronically filed so as to allow the Court and the parties to
locate it easily and refer to it without ambiguity. See L.R. 7.2. Future filings must
comply with the Local Rules. The Local Rules are available at
http://www.mtd.uscourts.gov/rulesorders.html.
II.
The parties submitted their Joint Discovery Plan to the Court on December
26, 2012. They agreed to serve their initial disclosures on each other by January
31, 2013, and proposed a discovery deadline of May 28, 2013. At the preliminary
pretrial conference in January, the Court adopted the parties’ discovery deadline
and set the motions deadline for June 28, 2013, and trial for October 7, 2013. At
no time did Defendants indicate these deadlines were unsatisfactory.
Plaintiff DLJ Mortgage served its initial disclosures on Defendants by the
deadline the parties had agreed to, but Defendants did not serve their initial
disclosures until April 5, 2013. Defendants’ decision to delay their initial
disclosures for over two months beyond the deadline delayed the commencement
of discovery. Under the Court’s October 19, 2012 Order, Defendants could not
commence discovery until they provided their initial disclosures to DLJ Mortgage.
DLJ Mortgage responded to Defendants’ First Set of Discovery Requests on
2

May 9, 2013. On May 17, 2013, Defendants served a set of supplemental
discovery requests on DLJ Mortgage. These requests were untimely as they were
not served in time to allow DLJ Mortgage 30 days to respond before the discovery
deadline expired.
Though Defendants’ supplemental discovery requests were untimely, the
Court will require DLJ Mortgage to respond to them outside the discovery period
if it has not done so already. DLJ Mortgage received Defendants’ first set of
discovery requests on March 1, 2013. It was within its rights to refuse to respond
to the requests until it received Defendants’ initial disclosures, but it then delayed
its response for over a month after that, finally responding May 9, 2013. Any
supplemental request Defendants filed at that time would have been too late to
allow 30 days for a response.
The Court will not otherwise extend the discovery deadline or trial date.
The parties were notified in the Court’s January 10, 2013 Scheduling Order that
the deadlines set in that order would not be continued absent compelling reasons.
Defendants have not shown compelling reasons to extend the discovery or trial
deadlines. Defendants failed to honor the deadlines they agreed to and have
shown no cause for their delay. The discovery challenges they describe (doc. 42 at
3–4) were predictable and should have been addressed earlier.
3

Of course, under Rule 26(e), all parties have a continuing duty to
supplement their discovery responses if the prior responses were “incomplete or
incorrect” and “additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made
known to” their opponent during discovery or in writing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to vacate the
scheduling order and enlarge the time for discovery (doc. 41) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DLJ Mortgage shall respond to
Defendants’ May 17, 2013 supplemental discovery requests no later than June 21,
2013, if it has not done so already.
Dated this 5th day of June 2013.

4