LaVigne v. First Community Bancshares, Inc., et al
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing granting 59 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying 68 Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply. Discovery due by 3/17/17. Motions due by 3/31/17. Proposed Pretrial Order due 5/28/17. (ccp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Janine LaVigne, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated,
First Community Bancshares, Inc.; First
Community Bank; DOES 1-10, inclusive,
ORDER ON MOTION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL DEADLINES
THIS MATTER is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Pre-Trial Deadlines
(Doc. 59), filed on December 22, 2016. Defendants filed a response on January 6, 2017 (Doc.
62), and plaintiff filed a reply on January 13, 2017 (Doc. 66). Defendants filed a Motion for
Leave to File a Sur-Reply (Doc. 68), and plaintiff filed a response to this motion (Doc. 69).
Having reviewed the filings and the applicable law, the Court finds the Motion to Extend PreTrial Deadlines is well taken and it will be GRANTED. The Court finds the Motion for Leave to
File a Sur-Reply is not well taken, and it will be DENIED.
The current discovery deadline is January 6, 2017, and the current class certification and
discovery motion deadline is January 17, 2017. Doc. 58. Plaintiff asks the Court to extend the
discovery deadline to March 6, 2017 and the deadline for class certification and discovery
motions to March 17, 2017. Doc. 66 at 3–4. As good cause for the requested extension, plaintiff
states that she did not receive the un-redacted call logs from defendants’ vendor GC Services
Limited Partnership until December 22, 2016, and that she needs additional time to complete
data processing and review of these records. Doc. 66 at 1, 3. Defendants contend that plaintiff
has failed to show the requisite “good cause” for modifying the scheduling order. Doc. 62 at 2.
Defendants argue that plaintiff can meet the current deadlines with “diligent efforts” and claim
that plaintiff has failed to “provide some reasonable basis for noncompliance with the scheduling
order.” Id. The Court finds defendants’ objections to the extension of time to be without merit.
Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for the extension and it will be granted. GC
Services did not provide the un-redacated call logs to plaintiff until December 22, 2016. Doc. 66
at 1. Plaintiff then had to send the un-redacted call logs to her data vendor for analysis. Id. at 2.
As of January 13, 2017, plaintiff was still in the process of completing the data processing and
review. Id. at 3. Plaintiff asserts that “three weeks is [not] sufficient to analyze and make use of
tens of thousands of pages of data.” Id. at 3. The Court agrees. Plaintiff has shown good cause
for an extension of the scheduling order deadlines, and the extension will be granted.
Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply will be denied. “The filing of a
surreply requires leave of the Court.” D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.4(b). “Courts generally do not grant a
party leave to file a sur-reply unless the opposing party's reply brief includes new information
that the responding party needs an opportunity to address.” Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp. v. Sw.
Clubs, Inc., No. 12cv01299 MCA/LAM, 2014 WL 11515028, at *8 (D.N.M. Mar. 31, 2014)
(citation omitted). Where a party points to “no new evidence or argument in [the] reply brief to
merit the filing of a sur-reply,” leave should be denied. Carrasco v. New Mexico Dep’t of
Workforce Sols., No. 10cv0999 MCA/SMV, 2013 WL 12092509, at *5 (D.N.M. Mar. 19, 2013).
Defendants point to no new evidence or argument in the reply brief. The Court therefore denies
defendants leave to file a sur-reply.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Pre-Trial Deadlines
(Doc. 59) is GRANTED. The Court hereby extends the scheduling order deadlines as follows:
Termination date for discovery:
March 6, 2017
Motions relating to discovery to be filed by:
March 17, 2017
Deadline for Plaintiff to move for class certification:
March 17, 2017
Pretrial motions other than discovery motions (including
motions which may require a Daubert hearing) filed by:
March 31, 2017
Proposed Pretrial Order: Plaintiff to Defendants by:
May 14, 2017
Defendants to the Court by:
May 28, 2017
Any further extension of the case management deadlines must be approved by the Court.
Any requests for additional discovery must be submitted to the Court by motion prior to the
expiration of the discovery deadline.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply is
United States Magistrate Judge
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?