Acosta et al v. LeMans Corporation d/b/a Parts Unlimited et al

Filing 85

ORDER denying without prejudice 84 Motion for Extension of Time.(Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
DIANA ACOSTA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LEMANS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

August 18, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL NO. 2:14-CV-455

ORDER
Under the scheduling order, as amended, the deadline to complete discovery
in this case fell on June 15, 2016, and docket call and final pretrial conference is set
for October 20, 2016. Dkt. No. 44 at 1. Among the pending motions in this case,
Defendant Van Leeuwen Enterprises, Inc. (“Van Leeuwen”) has filed a motion for
summary judgment, Dkt. No. 75, which has been submitted for decision. See S.D.
Tex. Civ. R. 7.4, Dkt. No. 78.
On August 10, 2016, Plaintiff and Van Leeuwen filed their Motion To Extend
Discovery, Joint Pretrial Order, and Final Pretrial Deadlines, Dkt. No. 84. The
parties represent that they “need additional time to conduct discovery including
some additional fact witness depositions.” Dkt. No. 84 ¶ 5. They request that the
Court extend the discovery deadline and subsequent scheduling-order dates “to
allow for the necessary discovery pending the Court’s ruling on the Motion for
Summary Judgment.” Dkt. No. 84 ¶ 6. The Court cannot determine from this
representation and request whether the parties believe the additional discovery
they propose to conduct will affect the pending motion for summary judgment. See
Dkt. No. 84 ¶¶ 4–6; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(2) (authorizing court to defer
consideration of summary-judgment motion if “a nonmovant shows by affidavit or
declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its
opposition”). Further, the instant motion does not address, in form or substance,
the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) standard for modifying a scheduling

1/2

order or explain why the discovery deadline could not be met despite movants’
diligence. See, e.g., Squyres v. Heico Cos., 782 F.3d 224, 237 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting
Meaux Surface Protection, Inc. v. Fogleman, 607 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2010))
(alterations in original) (holding that, to establish good cause to modify a deadline
set by a scheduling order, a party must “show that the deadlines cannot reasonably
be met despite the diligence of the party needing the extension”).
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff and Van Leeuwen’s Motion
To Extend Discovery, Joint Pretrial Order, and Final Pretrial Deadlines, Dkt. No.
84, WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling, provided that movants address the Rule
16(b)(4) and 56 standards, if applicable.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 18th day of August, 2016.

___________________________________
Hilda G. Tagle
Senior United States District Judge

2/2