Oni v. Mountain Management

Filing 39

ORDER denying 38 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 6/28/2017. (BDG, ) Order mailed to Oni.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
MYRA ONI,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MOUNTAIN MANAGEMENT,
Defendant.

1:16-cv-26-HSM-SKL

ORDER
Before the Court is a motion [Doc. 38] filed by Defendant Mountain Management
Services, Inc. (“Mountain Management” or “Defendant”) to modify the scheduling order to
allow the postponement of certain depositions until after the Court has ruled on dispositive
motions that Defendant anticipates it will file in this case. Specifically, Defendant asks this
Court to postpone depositions it wishes to take of eight individuals who Plaintiff Mayra L. Oni
(“Plaintiff”) has identified as potential witnesses. These potential witnesses are Towel Oni,
Angela Westfield, Valeesa Dickey, Corella Looney, April Cunningham, Carol Looney, Winston
Reed, and Carmeisha Goines (collectively “potential witnesses”) [Doc. 38 at Page ID # 355].
Plaintiff has not yet filed a response to the motion, but the Court will address the motion now
given the fast-approaching discovery deadline.
Defendant did not depose Plaintiff until June 13, 2017. During that deposition, Plaintiff
identified the potential witnesses she may call at trial. Defendant asserts that after the deposition
concluded, the parties agreed to delay deposing the potential witnesses until after the Court ruled
on any dispositive motions filed by the parties. On June 19, 2017, Defendant states that Plaintiff
provided, by email, that she no longer was willing to agree to such a delay [Doc. 38-3 at Page ID

#362].
Under the scheduling order [Doc. 18], the discovery period is set to conclude on July 18,
2017, the dispositive motion deadline is August 15, 2017, and the trial will occur November 28,
2017. A court may modify a scheduling order “only for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
Defendant asserts that granting its motion to modify the scheduling order to allow the
depositions to be taken sometime after the Court has ruled on the dispositive motions “may
decrease the cost and expense to both parties in this case” and “would decrease the
inconvenience to the non-party deponents.” [Doc. 38 at Page ID #356]. Defendant describes the
potential witnesses’ testimony as “not necessary for purposes of the filing of dispositive
motions” and “only relevant with respect to [Plaintiff’s] alleged damages.” [Id.]
The scheduling order in this case allows the parties to conduct discovery by agreement
after the close of discovery, but specifically states the Court will not involve itself in any
disputes that arise, such as the alleged changed position of Plaintiff regarding the taking of the
potential witnesses’ testimony after the close of discovery. Although the parties could have
requested bifurcation of damages discovery when the scheduling order was entered, they did not
do so. The Court does not find Defendant has shown “good cause” to modify the scheduling
order or for delay of damages discovery at this late date. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion [Doc.
38] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/fâátÇ ^A _xx
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2