Scott et al v. Abernathy Motorcycle Sales, Inc.

Filing 94

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 91 MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 8/6/2020. (mbm)

Case 1:18-cv-01077-STA-jay Document 94 Filed 08/06/20 Page 1 of 2

PageID 845

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
WILSON SCOTT; NOEL SCOTT;
WILSON SCOTT, as father and next
friend of his minor son, JOHN-DAVID
SCOTT; WILSON SCOTT, as father
and next friend of his minor son,
WALKER SCOTT; and STATE AUTO
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ABERNATHY MOTORCYCLE
SALES, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-cv-01077-STA-jay

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Abernathy Motorcycle Sales, Inc.’s Motion to Modify
Scheduling Order (ECF No. 91) filed July 29, 2020. Plaintiffs Wilson Scott, Noel Scott, and State
Auto Property and Casualty Insurance Company have responded in opposition. Under the current
case management deadlines set by the Court, the parties had until April 23, 2020, in which to file
dispositive motions. Defendant now argues that good cause exists to extend the dispositive motion
deadline to August 11, 2020. According to Defendant, the Covid-19 public health crisis prevented
the parties from completing expert depositions in March 2020. The parties agreed to reschedule
the deposition of Defendant’s opinion witness Jeffrey Morrill in July 2020. Defendant contends
that it could not file its dispositive motion without the deposition testimony of Morrill. Defendant
notes that the extension it requests will not affect the judicial settlement conference before the

Case 1:18-cv-01077-STA-jay Document 94 Filed 08/06/20 Page 2 of 2

PageID 846

United States Magistrate Judge on August 14 or prejudice Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs oppose the request,
arguing that Defendant had ample time to depose Morrill before the onset of the Covid-19 crisis.
Plaintiffs contend that Defendant cannot show that it acted diligently.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) states that a scheduling order can be modified
only on a showing of good cause and with the court’s consent. Prewitt v. Hamline Univ., 764 F.
App’x 524, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)). The Sixth Circuit has explained
that “[t]he 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 & Investment Corp., 661 F. App’x 305, 317 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Inge v. Rock Fin.
Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002)). The Court finds that Defendant has shown good cause
for the extension of the dispositive motion deadline. It is undisputed that the parties had scheduled
Morrill’s deposition for March 2020 but were only able to take it in July 2020 due to the Covid19 pandemic, a circumstance beyond either side’s control. The public health crisis recently
necessitated a district-wide continuance of all jury trials in both civil and criminal cases, including
this case. The Court has not reset the trial date and has referred the case to the United States
Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference. An extension of the dispositive motion deadline
will not affect the trial or the orderly progress of the case. Under the circumstances, good cause
exists to give the parties additional time to file dispositive motions. Therefore, Defendant’s
Motion is GRANTED. Motions are due on or before August 11, 2020.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: August 6, 2020

2