Myers v. Delaware County, Ohio et al

Filing 44

ORDER granting 41 Motion to modify the case schedule. Discovery cutoff is 12/1/2009 & MSJ due by 1/4/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 9/25/2009. (kjm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Alfred K. Myers, Plaintiff, v. Delaware County, Ohio, et al., Defendants.

: : : : : ORDER Case No. 2:07-cv-844 JUDGE HOLSCHUH

On August 26, 2009, plaintiff and all defendants except defendant James Ward filed a motion to modify the case schedule. Mr. Ward set forth the reasons for his opposition to the motion in a memorandum filed on the same day, and a reply brief was filed on September 2, 2009. will grant the motion. The joint motion represents that despite diligent efforts, the parties were unable to complete discovery prior to the current cutoff date of September 1, 2009. Given the trial schedule of plaintiff's counsel, the parties who joined the motion asked for a three-month extension of the discovery cutoff date and a similar extension of the summary judgment motion filing date. They note that the case has not yet been placed on a trial calendar. In his opposing memorandum, Mr. Ward argues primarily that plaintiff has developed no evidence that Mr. Ward was involved in the actions described in the complaint and that he should not be granted more time to attempt to locate such evidence. He also suggests that counsel was aware, when requesting the last extension, that his schedule would be difficult in September, and that perhaps he should have asked for more time then. The reply For the following reasons, the Court

memorandum points out that there has been no lack of diligence in trying to schedule the remaining depositions, but that counsel's willingness to accommodate their schedules made it impossible to depose them before the September 1 cutoff. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) requires the Court, in each civil action which is not exempt from that rule, to "enter a scheduling order that limits the time" to, inter alia, file motions, identify expert witnesses, and complete discovery. showing of good cause ...." Although the Court has broad discretion to modify its own pretrial orders, it must be remembered that "[a]dherence to reasonable deadlines is ... critical to maintaining integrity in court proceedings," Rouse v. Farmers State Bank, 866 F.Supp. 1191, 1199 (N.D. Iowa 1994), and that pretrial scheduling orders are "the essential mechanism for cases becoming trial-ready in an efficient, just, and certain manner." Id. at 1198. In evaluating whether the party seeking modification of a pretrial scheduling order has demonstrated good cause, the Court is mindful that "[t]he party seeking an extension must show that despite due diligence it could not have reasonably met the scheduled deadlines." Deghand v. Wal-Mart Stores, 904 F.Supp. The focus is primarily upon the Tschantz v. 1218, 1221 (D. Kan. 1995). The rule further provides that "[a] schedule shall not be modified except upon a

diligence of the movant; the absence of prejudice to the opposing party is not equivalent to a showing of good cause. McCann, 160 F.R.D. 568, 571 (N.D. Ind. 1995). offers no reason for a grant of relief." Of course,

"[c]arelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and Dilmer Oil Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 986 F.Supp. 959, 980 (D.S.C. 1997). Further, although the primary focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party's diligence, the presence or absence of prejudice to the other party or parties is a factor to be considered. -2Inge v.

Rock Financial Corp., 281 F.3d 613 (6th Cir. 2002).

It is with

these standards in mind that the instant motion will be decided. Here, Mr. Ward really does not take issue with the other parties' representations that counsel have been reasonably diligent in attempting to adhere to the current schedule. a brief extension of those dates. He also does not point to any specific prejudice he will suffer from As noted by the other parties, Given all of these there is no trial date currently set.

factors, the Court finds that the Rule 16(b) standard has been met and that the extension should be granted. Based on the foregoing, the joint motion to modify the case schedule (#41) is granted. before January 4, 2010. /s/ Terence P. Kemp United States Magistrate Judge The discovery cutoff is extended to December 1, 2009, and summary judgment motions are due on or

-3-