Markos George v. GO Frac, LLC., et al

Filing 136

ORDER DENYING 130 Opposed MOTION to Amend/Scheduling Order 129 filed by G.F. Crawford, Richard Crawford, GO Frac, LLC.(ADR Report Deadline due by 12/1/2017, Discovery due by 11/24/2017, Dispositive Motions due by 12/7/2017). Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (rg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
MARKOS GEORGE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff,
v.
GO FRAC, LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants.

'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'

Civil Action No. SA-15-CV-943-XR

ORDER
On this date, the Court considered the status of the above captioned case. On September
19, 2017, Defendants filed an Opposed Motion to Amend the March 9, 2017, Scheduling Order.
Docket no. 130. After careful consideration, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion as to the
deadlines requested. The Court hereby Orders the extension of certain scheduling order deadlines
as explained below.
BACKGROUND
In a March 8, 2017, Joint Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines, the parties
sought an extension because they had “run into significant delays relating to location and
processing time records and personnel files that have been requested in discovery and are
relevant to the matter.” Docket no. 128 at 1. The parties alleged Defendant Go Frac’s
“employment records were scattered and former employees with knowledge to assist in locating
and interpreting the paper and electronic documents were difficult to locate.” Id. at 2. Because of
the size of allegedly relevant documents, the parties anticipated “it will take several months for
Defendant to sort through the records for discovery purposes.” Id.

1

On March 9, 2017, the Court granted the Motion and extended all pending deadlines, but
explicitly stated in its Order that because of the age of the case and the length of the extensions,
“no further continuances of the trial date will be granted exigent circumstances.” Docket no. 129
at 1. Defendants’ pending motion seeks to extend the Scheduling Order, including for the
deadline to complete discovery and trial date, by between three to four months. Docket no. 130.
ANALYSIS
A scheduling order “shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by
leave of the district judge.” FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b). When the Court analyzes good cause under
Rule 16, it should consider four factors: (1) the movant’s reasons for needing the extension of the
deadline; (2) the importance of the extension; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the extension;
and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice. S & W Enter., L.L.C. v.
Southtrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003). Whether the movant has good
cause under Rule 16 is within the discretion of the trial court. Id. at 535–36.
Defendants fail to show good cause for the Court to extend the Scheduling Order
deadlines for the length Defendants seek. First, Defendants fail to convince the Court there is
good reason to extend the deadlines by three to four months. Although Defendant states Go
Frac’s corporate records have been difficult to come by, and there are many documents to
review, the Court has already once extended Scheduling Order deadlines for these same reasons.
Second, although Defendants allege the remaining discovery is important, the Court finds the
requested extension is not justified, particularly given that an extension has already been granted.
Further, the roster of opt-in Plaintiffs was finalized more than seven months ago, but the parties
did not begin discussing written discovery and depositions until late August. Finally, there is
substantial potential prejudice given that this case has been pending for some time and the

2

extension Defendants seek will only serve to further delay disposition of this case. The Court
does not find good cause to grant Defendants the requested extended deadlines, but it does
extend certain deadlines to allow the parties sufficient time to proceed with the case.
Accordingly, the Court extends the deadlines for the completion of discovery until
November 24, 2017, for the filing of the ADR report until December 1, 2017, and for the filing
of pre-trial motions (including dispositive motions and Daubert motions) until December 7,
2017. All other deadlines will remain as set in the Amended Scheduling Order. Docket no. 129.
Although the Court acknowledges that the parties claim certain discovery disputes remain, the
parties should work to resolve these issues within the extended discovery deadline. To the extent
that the parties are unable to resolve discovery disputes, they may file appropriate motions as
necessary.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order is
DENIED. The Court hereby extends the deadlines for the completion of discovery until
November 24, 2017, for the filing of the ADR report until December 1, 2017, and for the filing
of pre-trial motions (including dispositive motions and Daubert motions) until December 7,
2017. All other deadlines remain as set in the Amended Scheduling Order. Docket no. 129.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 2nd day of October, 2017.

XAVIER RODRIGUEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3