United States of America v. Bertie Ambulance Service, Inc. et al

Filing 60

ORDER granting 49 Motion for Discovery; granting 49 Motion to Continue. This matter is REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., to conduct a status conference. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 10/28/2015. (Copy emailed to US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr.) (Edwards, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION
No. 2:14-CV-00053-F

.)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.
BERTIE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

1bis matter is before the court on the Government's Motion to Reopen Discovery [DE-49].
Upon review of the instant motion and having considered the entire record, the court finds that the
Government has shown good cause to reopen discovery and to continue the trial date. Accordingly,
the Government's Motion [DE-49] is ALLOWED.

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL IDSTORY

The Government initiated this action by filing a Complaint [DE-l] on August 28, 2014. On
June 30, 2015, Defendants moved for summary judgment. Mot. Summ. J. [DE-25]. The court
granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants Edward L. Lipscomb and Annetta P. Lipscomb as
to all claims. Order Oct. 8, 2015 [DE-40]. Further, the court found thaJall claims against Defendant
Bertie Ambulance Service, Inc., ("Bertie") arising prior to August 28, 2008, were time-barred. Id On
October 13, 2015, the Government filed the instant Motion to Reopen Discovery [DE-49].

IT.

DISCUSSION

A motion to reopen discovery, and thereby modify the scheduling order, requires a showing of
good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The good cause provision ofRule 16(b)(4) does not focus

on the prejudice to the non-movant or bad faith of the moving party, but rather on the moving party's
diligence. Dilmar Oil Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 986 F. Supp. 959, 980 (D.S.C. 1997); see also

McDonald v. Marlboro County, No. 5:12-CV-1725-RBH-KDW, 2013 WL6580631, at *4 (DXC.
Dec. 16, 2013) ("[T]he key to the 'good cause' analysis of Rule 16 is whether the party was diligent in
seeking to amend."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b ), advisory committee's note (1983 amendment) ("[T]he
court may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably be met despite the
diligence of the party seeking the extension.''). The party moving to modify a scheduling order bears
the burden of demonstrating the existence of good cause. United States v. Cochran, No. 4: 12-CV220-FL, 2014 WL 347426, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 30, 2014) (citing Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian,
535 F.3d 295,298 (4th Cir. 2008)).
Here, the Government was diligent in seeking to amend. The court's Order [DE-40] partially
granting summary judgment was entered on October 8, 2015. That Order significantly altered the
posture of the case. The instant motion was filed less than a week later, on October 13, 2015. Bertie
opposes the motion, pointing to the prejudice it will suffer from participating in further discovery.
Prejudice to the non-movant, however, is not the focus of the court's inquiry. See Dilmar Oil Co., 986
F. Supp. at 980. Having determined that the Government acted diligently in moving to amend, the
court concludes that discovery should be reopened as requested.

ill.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Government's Motion to Reopen Discovery [DE-49] is
ALLOWED. Trial in this matter is CONTINUED to the court's March 7, 2016 term of court. This
matter is REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., 'to conduct a status
conference.

2

SO ORDERED.
This the ~ 5

day of October, 2015.

Jiifllis C. FOX

Senior United States District Judge

3