Davis v. Resorts West

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER re 28 Motion to Amend/Correct and AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 3/31/2017. Motions due by 3/17/2017. Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/7/2017 at 02:30 PM in Rm 8.300 before Judge Dee Benson. 10 Day Jury Trial set for 8/21/2017 at 08:30 AM in Rm 8.300 before Judge Dee Benson. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 1/6/2017. (blh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

HEIDI DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER AND SECOND AMENDED
SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 2:15-cv-398-DB-PMW

RESORTS WEST, LLC,
Defendant.

District Judge Dee Benson
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner

District Judge Dee Benson referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the court is Resorts West’s (“Defendant”) motion
to amend the Amended Scheduling Order.2 The court has carefully reviewed the written
memoranda submitted by the parties. Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the
United States District Court for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is
not necessary and will determine the motion on the basis of the written memoranda. See
DUCivR 7-1(f).
On February 3, 2016, the court issued the original Scheduling Order in this matter with a
trial date of May 15, 2017.3 On September 22, 2016, the court granted the parties’ joint motion

1

See docket no. 23.

2

See docket no. 28.

3

See docket no. 17.

to amend the scheduling order and issued an Amended Scheduling Order that extended some
deadlines for thirty days but left the trial date in place.4
Defendant has now filed the instant motion to amend the Amended Scheduling Order,
requesting that this court extend the remaining dates, including the trial date, by an additional
sixty days. Defendant notes that the parties have a mediation scheduled for January 23, 2017,
and asserts that continuing to engage in expert discovery prior to mediation may be a waste of
time and resources. Heidi Davis (“Plaintiff”) opposes Defendant’s motion on the grounds that
Defendant has not demonstrated good cause for the amendment. Plaintiff also contends that this
motion is nothing more than a prejudicial delay tactic. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that
Defendant has purposefully failed to promptly return phone calls regarding the scheduling of
mediation and that Defendant’s choice of the very last date offered by the mediator was part of
an overall strategy to delay this matter. Plaintiff indicates that she has repeatedly informed
Defendant that she does not want to extend the trial date.
Under rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order may be
modified “only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The court
considers the following factors in determining whether to amend the scheduling order:
1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) whether the nonmoving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining
discovery within the guidelines established by the court, 5) the foreseeability of the need
for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the district court,
and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence.
Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166, 170 (10th Cir. 1987). The court concludes that these
factors weigh in favor of amending the scheduling order and that Defendant has demonstrated
good cause for the amendment. In particular, while Plaintiff opposes the request, she has failed
4

See docket no. 20-1.
2

to explain how she will be prejudiced by this minor extension. In addition, because the parties
are scheduled for mediation later this month, the court concludes that it is in the interests of
judicial economy to amend the scheduling order.
Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Amend the Amended
Scheduling Order. The Second Amended Scheduling Order is set forth as follows:
Rule 26(a)(2) Counter Reports from Experts

2/28/2017

Expert Discovery Deadline

3/31/2017

Dispositive Motion Deadline

3/17/2017

Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony

3/17/2017

Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial Disclosures
Plaintiff
Defendant

6/16/2017
6/30/2017

Special Attorney Conference on or before

7/17/2017

Settlement Conference on or before

7/17/2017

Final Pretrial Conference

8/7/2017
at 2:30 p.m.

Jury Trial (10 days)

8/21/2017
at 8:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge

3