Crawford v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Filing 41

ORDER : Plaintiff requests for extension of the discovery completion date is DENIED. Plaintiff requests an extension of time for production of documents, is GRANTED. Plaintiff may propound by 8/27/11 requests for production of documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 8/22/11. (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.

ORDER
Discovery in this action is currently set to close on August 31,
2011.

Order, Doc. No. 31.

Plaintiff’s motion for a 60-day extension

of that date was denied by the Court.

Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 38.

On August 22, 2011, the Court conferred, by telephone, with counsel
regarding the status of discovery.
Plaintiff has scheduled one deposition to be completed prior to
the close of discovery.

She asks that the discovery completion date

be extended by approximately 30 days to permit 3 additional
depositions and requests for production of approximately 20-25 pages
of documents.

Defendant objects, again, to any additional extension

of the discovery completion date in this action.
The Court recounted the procedural history of this action in its
Opinion and Order of August 17, 2011, and that history will not be
repeated here.

Although the discovery completion date has previously

been extended, see Order, Doc. No. 31, and although plaintiff’s most
recent request to further extend that date has been denied, see
Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 38, plaintiff now asks that she be
permitted to conduct three additional depositions over the course of
the next 30 days.

Two of the proposed deponents reside in Texas and

Arizona, respectively.

Plaintiff did not identify the third proposed

deponent, who is described merely as an employee of defendant’s HR
department.

Defendant objects to the requested additional extension,

arguing that plaintiff has not shown good cause for the extension and,
further, that the grant of the requested extension will work to the
prejudice of defendant, whose counsel’s schedule is already burdened.
This Court agrees that, in requesting yet another extension,
plaintiff has not met the standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)for
modification of a pretrial schedule.

Moreover, by requesting that

additional depositions – two of which would presumably be conducted in
Texas and Arizona – be completed within 30 days would unreasonably
prejudice defendant, which has demonstrated compliance with the
Court’s schedules.
2003).

See Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 906 (6th Cir.

Under these circumstances, the Court will not authorize the

requested additional 3 depositions.
However, the Court will permit plaintiff to propound additional
discovery requests.

Her counsel represents that the request will

generate only 20-25 pages.

Defendant will not, presumably, be

unreasonably burdened by responding to that request and it appears to
the Court that the dispositive motion filing deadline may be preserved
notwithstanding an additional request for documents.
In sum, to the extent that plaintiff requests a 30 day extension

2

of the discovery completion date for the purpose of conducting three
additional depositions, the request is DENIED.

To the extent that

plaintiff requests an extension of time to propound additional
requests for production of documents, the request is GRANTED.
Plaintiff may propound, no later than August 24, 2011, requests for
production of documents.

August 22, 2011

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

3