American Zurich Insurance Company et al v. Sunlight Transport LLC et al

Filing 30

OPINION AND ORDER denying 22 MOTION for Extension of Time Discovery Cut-Off, Dispositive Motion filed by American Zurich Insurance Company. The deadline for completing discovery 7/29/11. Plaintiffs have until 9/12/11 to file dispositive motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 9/08/11. (rew)

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

AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

Civil Action 2:09-CV-1104
Judge Watson
Magistrate Judge King

SUNLIGHT TRANSPORT, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs, subrogees, seek recovery in connection with damages
caused by a fire in a Freightliner1 tractor trailer.

Plaintiffs assert

claims of negligence and defective product(s) under O.R.C. §§ 2305.75,
2305.76 and Ohio common law.

This matter is now before the Court on

plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time, in which they ask that
the deadlines for discovery and filing dispositive motions be extended
by three (3) months.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Discovery

Cut-Off Dispositive Motion Deadlines, Doc. No. 22 (“Motion for
Extension”).
The Court conducted a preliminary pretrial conference pursuant to
the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) on February 25, 2010.
Following that conference, the Court issued an order directing, inter

1

The parties later stipulated that Daimler Trucks North America LLC
shall be substituted on all pleadings for the name Freightliner LLC. Doc.

No. 14.

alia, that all discovery be completed by February 15, 2011 and that
dispositive motions be filed no later than March 15, 2011.
Preliminary Pretrial Order, at 2, Doc. No. 12.

Shortly thereafter,

the Court established dates for a final pretrial conference and trial
on September 21, 2011 and October 17, 2011, respectively.

Scheduling

Order, Doc. No. 13.
On January 14, 2011, the parties filed a motion to extend, inter
alia, the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines by two (2)
months.

Doc. No. 16.

The Court granted the joint motion, requiring

that all discovery be completed by April 15, 2011 and that dispositive
motions be filed, if at all, by May 16, 2011.

Order, Doc. No. 17.

On May 3, 2011, after the new discovery deadline had passed, the
parties jointly moved a second time to extend case deadlines by
another three (3) months.

Doc. No. 19.

With the consent of the

assigned District Judge, the Court granted the joint motion, requiring
that all discovery be completed by July 31, 2011 and that dispositive
motions be filed, if at all, by August 31, 2011.

Order, Doc. No. 20.

The Court also vacated the dates for the final pretrial conference and
trial, id., rescheduling the final pretrial conference for March 14,
2012 and the trial for April 9, 2012.

Scheduling Order, Doc. No. 21.

A few days before the latest discovery deadline was set to
expire, plaintiffs filed their Motion for Extension, in which they ask
that the discovery period be extended by yet another three (3) months
or until October 31, 2011 and that the deadline for filing dispositive
motions be extended three (3) months or until November 30, 2011.

2

Motion for Extension, p. 2.2
extension.

Defendants oppose the requested

Doc. No. 24.

Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that
the Court, in each civil action not exempt from the operation of the
rule, enter a scheduling order that limits the time to, inter alia,
complete discovery and file motions.
(b)(3)(A).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1),

The rule further provides that “[a] schedule may be

modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”
Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

Fed. R.

“[A] court choosing to modify a schedule upon a

showing of good cause may do so only ‘if it cannot reasonably be met
despite the diligence of the parties seeking the extension.’”
v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 906 (6th Cir. 2003).

Leary

“Another important

consideration for a district court deciding whether Rule 16's ‘good
cause’ standard is met is whether the opposing party will suffer
prejudice by virtue of the amendment.”

Id. (citing Inge v. Rock Fin.

Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002)).
In their motion, plaintiffs represent that “it was readily
apparent that additional Naughton [Insurance Co.] and [American]
Zurich personnel will need to be deposed and additional documentation
provided to Defendants.”

Motion for Extension, p. 2.

Plaintiffs also

suggest that defense counsel favor an extension of the deadlines.

Id.

(representing that defense counsel are “reluctant” to schedule expert
depositions and that defendants cannot timely file their dispositive

2

On August 31, 2011, the Court granted defendant Sunlight Transport
LLC’s motion for a short extension of time to file dispositive motions,
requiring that such motions be filed, if at all, by September 7, 2011. Order,
Doc. No. 26. Although defendants have filed motions for summary judgment,
Doc. Nos. 27, 28, plaintiff has not filed such a motion.

3

motions without first completing these depositions).

Defendants

disagree, representing that plaintiffs have a history of failing to
meet discovery obligations throughout this litigation, including
failing to prepare plaintiffs’ witnesses for their Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(b)(6) depositions.

Doc. No. 24, pp. 2-5.

Defendants argue that

these failures militate against the requested extension and contend
that yet another extension of time unreasonably burdens defendants.
Id. at 5-7.
Defendants’ arguments are well-taken.

Nowhere in the Motion to

Compel do plaintiffs ever explain why they were unable to meet the
most recent discovery completion deadline. Moreover, it is not
apparent that the nineteen-month discovery period was insufficient to
permit plaintiffs to conduct all appropriate discovery. Further, the
Court notes that, despite plaintiffs’ representations to the contrary,
defendants were able to, and in fact did, timely file motions for
summary judgment.

Doc. Nos. 27, 28.

Plaintiffs’ failure to establish

good cause for the most recent request for an extension is therefore
fatal to that request.

Finally, this Court does not disagree that

extending the discovery deadline yet again under these circumstances
prejudices defendants who have been defending this case since December
2009.
For all these reasons, then, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of
Discovery Cut-Off Dispositive Motion Deadlines, Doc. No. 22, is
DENIED.

The deadline for completing discovery, July 29, 2011, which

has now passed, remains unchanged.

Notwithstanding the denial of

plaintiffs’ motion, however, plaintiffs may have until September 12,
2011 in which to file a dispositive motion, if they choose to do so.

4

Finally, the Court further notes that the dates for the final
pretrial conference, March 14, 2012, and the trial, April 9, 2012,
remain the same.

September 8, 2011

See Scheduling Order, Doc. No. 21.

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

5