LeBeau v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company
Filing
20
AMENDED ORDER granting plaintiff's 14 motion to extend deadlines. Discovery deadline May 1, 2014; Motions deadline June 30, 2014. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Veronica L. Duffy on 10/21/2013. (Duffy, Veronica)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
BROOKE LEBEAU,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
CIV. 12-50044-JLV
AMENDED
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION
Pending before the court is plaintiff Brooke LeBeau’s motion to extend the
scheduling deadlines in this case.
See Docket No. 14. Defendant Progressive
Northern Insurance Company objects.
See Docket No. 15. A hearing was held
on plaintiff’s motion on today’s date. Mr. Robin Zephier was present in court on
behalf of Ms. LeBeau and Mark Arndt appeared by videoconference on behalf of
defendant.
Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs this dispute.
Rule
16 requires the district court to issue an order setting deadlines for various
stages of the litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1) (requiring that the court set
deadlines for joining parties, amending pleadings, and filing motions, and
allowing the district court to set additional deadlines). A court may modify the
schedule upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure controls the granting of an
extension of time. That rule provides in pertinent part as follows:
(b)
Extending Time.
(1)
In General. When an act may or must be done within a
specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the
time:
(A)
with or without motion or notice if the court acts,
or if a request is made, before the original time or
its extension expires; or
(B)
on motion made after the time has expired if the
party failed to act because of excusable neglect.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) (emphasis added). Both Rule 6 and Rule 16 must be
interpreted in a manner so as to achieve the Ajust, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action.@ See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
Here, the pleadings as well as the facts adduced at the hearing reveal that
plaintiff’s attorney has not been diligent in prosecuting this matter. He received
a letter in November, 2012, from defendant indicating that a CD containing
documents defendant was providing in discovery was accompanying the letter.
The CD was apparently omitted from the letter, but plaintiff’s counsel never
notified defendant of this until now.
Also, plaintiff served defendant with written discovery requests in April,
2013, and defendant served written responses to that discovery in May, June,
and July of 2013. Although plaintiff alleges that defendant’s written responses
are not satisfactory, two and a half months have elapsed since plaintiff received
the last of those discovery responses and no motion to compel was ever filed.
Finally, plaintiff’s counsel mistakenly believed that the deadline for
plaintiff to designate experts was September 13, 2013, instead of the date that
had been established by the district court, which was September 3.
Nevertheless, plaintiff failed to file her motion to extend prior to the expiration of
the deadline plaintiff thought was applicable. Plaintiff’s motion was filed
September 25, 2013, 12 days after the date she mistakenly believed to be the
deadline.
In response to all of this, plaintiff’s counsel explained that he has taken
approximately 40 depositions and participated in 6 mediations in the last four
months and simply lost track of the deadlines in this case.
Defendant’s counsel, for his part, stated that he was not unsympathetic to
plaintiff’s counsel’s busy schedule or to the fact that calendaring mistakes are
sometimes made. Defendant opposed the extension simply because there was
no excuse or reason given by plaintiff and no assurances as to future diligence.
Defendant represented to the court that no prejudice would inure to his client if
the extension was granted and that he believed the deadlines proposed by
plaintiff would be workable.
Furthermore, the court notes that a trial date in
this case has not yet been set.
The court grants plaintiff’s motion, with the admonition that plaintiff is
required to immediately begin prosecuting her case. No further motions to
extend are expected. If any such motions are made, the motion must be filed
before the expiration of the applicable deadline, and there must be established
uncontrovertable good cause for the extension. Accordingly, based on the
foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that the court’s prior scheduling order [Docket No. 13] is
amended as follows:
1. All discovery, including expert discovery, shall be commenced in time to
be completed by May 1, 2014;
2. The identity of and reports from retained experts under Rule 26(a)(2)
shall be due from plaintiff by November 30, 2013, and from defendant
by January 31, 2014;
3. All motions, other than motions in limine, together with supporting
briefs, shall be filed and served on or before June 30, 2014; and
4. Designations, disclosures, and reports under Rule 26(a)(2) are not filed
with the Clerk.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other provisions of the district court’s
original scheduling order [Docket No. 11] remain in effect unless specifically
changed.
Dated October 21, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
Veronica L. Duffy
VERONICA L. DUFFY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?