Blackwell et al v. Auto-Owners Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 34

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS 33 MOTION FOR EXTENSION. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 6/9/17. (Anderson, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DIVISION OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION

JENNIFER BLACKWELL and
DAMIEN BLACKWELL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AUTO-OWNERS (MUTUAL)
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-cv-2842-STA-egb

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION

Before the Court is Defendant Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Company’s Motion for
Extension (ECF No. 33) filed on June 8, 2017. Defendant seeks an extension of the deadline for
completing fact discovery and other deadlines related to experts.

Defendant’s Motion is

DENIED. Local Rule 7.2(a)(1) states that the Clerk of Court will accept for filing only motions
accompanied by a memorandum of facts and law.

Defendant has not filed a supporting

memorandum of facts and law to show good cause for the extensions sought in the Motion.
Without a memorandum of facts and law, the Court cannot determine whether good cause exists
to extend the case management deadlines. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides
that a “schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The primary measure of Rule 16’s ‘good cause’ standard is the moving
party’s diligence in attempting to meet the case management order’s requirements.” Bank of
Am., N.A. v. Corporex Realty & Inv. Corp., 661 F. App’x 305, 317 (6th Cir. 2016)I (quoting Inge
v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002)). Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for

1

Extension is DENIED without prejudice to refile the Motion with a memorandum of facts and
law showing good cause to extend the scheduling order deadlines.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: June 9, 2017

2