Yazzie v. Fezatte et al
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lourdes A. Martinez GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 47 Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines. (atc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
No. CIV-16-0472 RJ/LAM
SETH FEZATTE and
WERNER ENTERPRISES, Inc.,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT MOTION TO
EXTEND SCHEDULING DEADLINES
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ joint motion to extend the scheduling
deadlines in this case [Doc. 47], filed on February 20, 2017. Having considered the motion and
record of the case, the Court FINDS that the motion shall be GRANTED in part and DENIED
In their motion, the parties ask the Court to extend their scheduling order deadlines by
ninety (90) days. See [Doc. 47 at 1]. The parties state that they have had difficulty scheduling
depositions for the parties in the case, noting that Defendant Fezatte lives out of the state, that the
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition for Defendant Werner Enterprises is scheduled to take place in early
April 2017, and that Defendants are still obtaining Plaintiff’s medical records. Id. at 2-3.
The Court finds that the parties’ request for a 90-day extension of time is excessive.
First, the Court put this case on a 180-day track, which is the longest track available for a
standard, non-complex, case. See [Doc. 38] (Clerk’s Minutes from the November 2, 2016
Rule 16 initial scheduling conference). The Court routinely tells parties at these scheduling
conferences that, if the parties ask for and are granted a 180-day track, the Court will have very
little leeway in granting extensions of time in the future. The Court also finds that the parties’
stated reasons for their request are not persuasive. While the parties state that they “have
exchanged numerous emails and telephone calls in a good faith effort to pin down equally
amenable dates” (id. at 3), they do not attach copies of these emails or a record of these calls to
their motion, so the Court is unable to assess the parties’ diligence. Moreover, each party in this
case is represented by multiple attorneys, so the parties should be able to find dates that at least
one of the parties’ attorneys is available for depositions. As for Defendant Fezatte, counsel fail
to explain why they have not travelled to where he is located to take his deposition, which is
standard procedure for a defendant. The Court suggests that the parties exchange no more than
two rounds of dates for their depositions, and if they are still unable to find mutually agreeable
dates, the parties can set the depositions they require and the opposing party can ask the Court
for relief if they have a valid reason that they are unable to attend the deposition. Finally, since
the parties state that they need these depositions in order to proceed with their expert reports, the
Court suggests that the parties immediately set all necessary depositions and move the currentlyscheduled Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to an earlier date.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that a 30-day extension of time should be
sufficient for the parties set up their depositions. The Court notes that a 30-day extension
provides the parties more than ninety (90) days from today to complete their discovery.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion to extend the scheduling
deadlines in this case [Doc. 47] is GRANTED in part, and the parties’ deadlines are extended as
Plaintiff’s expert disclosures:
April 3, 2017
Defendants’ expert disclosures:
May 3, 2017
June 2, 2017
Discovery motions deadline:
June 23, 2017
Pretrial motions deadline:
July 13, 2017
All other deadlines in this case shall remain in effect and are not extended. These
deadlines shall not be extended again without approval of the Court upon a motion setting
forth exceptional cause for extension. The press of other cases, vacations and intervening
holidays are not considered to be exceptional circumstances.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LOURDES A. MARTÍNEZ
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?