Harding v. Transforce, Inc. et al

Filing 33

ORDER In reference to telephone conference held on 2/08/12. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 2/08/12. (rew)

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

NORA HARDING,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:11-CV-244
Judge Sargus
Magistrate Judge King

TRANSFORCE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
The Court conferred, by telephone, with counsel on February 8, 2012
regarding plaintiff’s recent notices of depositions.
This case was removed to this Court on March 18, 2011.

Following

the April 27, 2011 Rule 16 conference, and acceding to the parties’
request for a longer pretrial schedule than the Court would normally
permit, the Court required, inter alia, that all non-expert discovery be
completed no later than February 13, 2012.
Doc. No. 20.

Preliminary Pretrial Order,

The Court also expressly warned the parties that there

would be no extensions of the dates established in that order.

Id., p.

2. Shortly before the close of business on February 2, 2012, plaintiff
unilaterally

noticed

the

depositions

of

sixteen

individuals

to

be

completed by the February 13, 2012 non-expert discovery completion date.
Defendants objected to the burdensome nature of plaintiff’s notices but,
by the time of the conference with the Court, the parties had agreed to
plaintiff’s depositions of three (3) individuals on February 13, 2012.
Remaining in dispute are plaintiff’s requested depositions of Gale Hoover
and defendant Paul Lay. Plaintiff asks that, if these individuals cannot
reasonably be deposed by the non-expert discovery completion date, she
be permitted to depose them at some later date.
The timing of plaintiff’s notices of sixteen depositions, i.e.,

little more than one week prior to the close of non-expert discovery, was
simply unreasonable.

Other depositions had already been scheduled for

that period of time, defense counsel’s calendars were already committed
and at least some of the proposed deponents were unavailable for even
consultation as to their availability.1

The Court will therefore not

require that the depositions of Gale Hoover and Paul Lay be completed
within the existing non-expert discovery completion date.
Plaintiff asks, in the alternative, that she be permitted to depose
these individuals at some point after the non-expert discovery completion
date.

Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

that “[a pretrial] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with
the judge’s consent.” A major factor in determining whether a requested
extension is warranted is “whether the moving party was diligent in
pursuing discovery.”
478 (6th Cir. 2010).

Dowling v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 593 F.3d 472,
The Court has heard nothing that justifies

plaintiff’s last-minute request for depositions, considering that she has
had almost ten (10) months to conduct this discovery.

Because plaintiff

has failed to establish good cause for an extension of the non-expert
discovery completion date, the Court declines to extend that date for the
purpose of conducting the depositions of Gale Hoover and Paul Lay.

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
February 8, 2012

1

Counsel has offered to determine the availability of Gale Hoover for
deposition on February 13, 2012 – a date on which 3 other depositions are
scheduled to be taken.

2