Crawford v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Filing
38
OPINION AND ORDER re 36 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 8/17/11. (rew)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
PAULA CRAWFORD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Civil Action 2:10-CV-258
Judge Smith
Magistrate Judge King
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is an employment action in which plaintiff asserts claims of
violation and retaliation under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq., of
disability discrimination, race discrimination and retaliation under
O.R.C. §4112.01 et seq., and of invasion of privacy.
This matter is
now before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time,
in which she asks that the discovery completion period be extended by
two (2) months or until October 31, 2011.
Motion for Extension of
Time to Conduct Discovery, Doc. No. 36 (“Motion for Extension”).
On July 1, 2010, the Court conducted a preliminary pretrial
conference pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
Following that conference, the Court issued an order directing, inter
alia, that all discovery be completed by January 31, 2011.
Preliminary Pretrial Order, at 2, Doc. No. 8.
counsel withdrew from this action.
Thereafter, plaintiff’s
Order, Doc. No. 13.
The Court
held a status conference, in which the pro se plaintiff participated,
and extended the case deadlines, including setting a new discovery
deadline of April 15, 2011.
Order, Doc. No. 17.
On January 27, 2011, new counsel entered an appearance for
plaintiff.
Notice, Doc. No. 19.
On March 7, 2011, the Court held a
status conference and all parties were represented.
31.
Order, Doc. No.
At plaintiff’s new counsel’s request, and without objection from
defense counsel, the Court issued an order after the conference that
extended the existing pretrial schedule.
Id. at 1.
Specifically, the
Court ordered that all discovery be completed no later than August 31,
2011 and that motions for summary judgment be filed no later than
September 30, 2011.
Id. at 1.
The Court noted that the case would be
available for final pretrial conference in January 2012.
Id.
The
Court specifically advised that it “will not expect a request to
further extend the pretrial schedule in this case.”
Id. at 2.
On August 14, 2011, approximately two weeks before the discovery
deadline, plaintiff filed her Motion for Extension, in which she asks
that the discovery period be extended by two (2) months or until
October 31, 2011 and that the deadline for filing dispositive motions
be extended two (2) months or until November 28, 2011.
Extension, p. 2.
Motion for
Defendant opposes the requested extension.
Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Extension of Time
to Conduct Discovery Filed by Plaintiff’s Counsel, Doc. No. 37.1
1
Plaintiff’s counsel has contacted the undersigned on several occasions
to inquire about the status of the Motion for Extension, expressing an
interest in a quick resolution. Based on that communication, and the
implication that plaintiff does not plan to file a reply memorandum, this
matter is ripe for resolution.
2
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, to 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 the motion for extension of time, plaintiff represents that
she has responded to defendant’s document requests and that
“Defendant’s Counsel has been cooperative in providing joint documents
in their discovery.”
Motion for Extension, p. 2.
Plaintiff seeks “an
extension due to the litigation calendar of Plaintiff’s Counsel and
the necessity to conduct minor documentary discovery as well as take
deposition[s] of 4-5 witnesses.”
Id.
However, nowhere in the motion
does plaintiff ever explain why she was unable to meet the discovery
completion deadline previously established by this Court.
Moreover,
it is not apparent that the seven months provided for discovery by the
Court’s most recent Order, Doc. No. 31, since new counsel entered an
appearance in January, in addition to the six month discovery period
prior to that appearance, was insufficient to conduct all appropriate
3
discovery by plaintiff.
Indeed, defendant represents that plaintiff,
who was specifically warned at the last status conference that there
would be no more extensions, has conducted no discovery since new
counsel entered an appearance in January 2011.
Doc. No. 37, p. 2.
Plaintiff’s failure to establish good cause is therefore fatal to the
request.
Finally, defendant argues, and this Court does not disagree,
that extending the discovery deadline a third time under these
circumstances prejudices defendant who has been defending this case
since March 2010.
Id. at 2-3.
For all these reasons, then, plaintiff’s motion for an extension
of time, Doc. No. 36, is DENIED.
The deadlines for completing
discovery, August 31, 2011, and filing motions for summary judgment,
September 30, 2011, remain unchanged.
August 17, 2011
s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?