Cai Design Inc. v. Phoenix Federal #2 Mining LLC
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 33 MOTION by John F. Hale, Jr. to Modify 20 Scheduling Order and denying as moot 71 MOTION by Cai Design, Inc. to Reschedule Pretrial Conference. The court will reopen discovery so that Hale may take the deposition of Ms. Bessie Yifei Cai. Plaintiff must be given the opportunity to re-depose Hale. The parties must complete these depositions on or before 10/29/2021. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/28/2021. (cc: counsel of record) (mk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
CAI DESIGN, INC., a New
York corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-00242
PHOENIX FEDERAL #2 MINING, LLC,
a West Virginia limited liability
company; PHOENIX ENERGY RESOURCES,
LLC, a West Virginia limited
liability company; and JOHN F.
HALE, JR, an individual,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court are two motions relating to
scheduling.
The first is the motion of defendant John F. Hale,
Jr. (“Hale”) to modify the scheduling order.
(ECF No. 33.)
The
second is the motion of plaintiff to reschedule the pretrial
conference.
(ECF No. 71.)
The court will grant the first
motion in part and deny it as moot in part.
The court will deny
the second motion as moot.
The first motion asks the court to extend the scheduling
order deadlines by three months.
Since Hale filed this motion,
the court has entered amended scheduling orders that render much
of the motion moot.
However, the motion is not moot as to
Hale’s request to extend the discovery deadline.
Hale
represents that “[d]ue to [his] health, he was unable to
participate in discovery or meet with counsel, which
significantly impacted his ability to defend himself as an
individual in this matter.”
(ECF No. 33, at 1.)
His health
issues are related to cancer, for which he has undergone
treatment during this litigation.
(See id.)
Federal Rule of Procedure 16(b)(4) provides for amendment
of a scheduling order upon a showing of good cause.
The question before the court is whether [Hale] has
shown that despite [his] counsel’s diligence and good
faith efforts the discovery deadlines could not be met
and that there is a good cause to permit additional
discovery at this late stage in the litigation.
Innovative Therapies, Inc. v. Meents, 302 F.R.D. 364, 384 (D.
Md. 2014).
Hale’s health issues are not insignificant.
On the other
hand, the court cannot reopen discovery entirely without
substantial prejudice to plaintiff.
Moreover, it is unclear why
Hale did not hire counsel initially instead of attempting to
represent himself while he was undergoing serious treatment.
The court finds that there is good cause for a very limited
reopening of discovery (especially given the limited scope of
the issues in this case).
The court will reopen discovery so
that Hale may take the deposition of Ms. Bessie Yifei Cai.
In
fairness to plaintiff, given the lapse of time, plaintiff must
2
be given the opportunity to re-depose Hale.
The parties must
complete these depositions on or before October 29, 2021.
In the second motion, plaintiff asks the court to
reschedule the pretrial conference.
Because the court has since
done so, (see ECF No. 82), this motion is now moot, and the
court will deny it as such.
For the reasons expressed above, Hale’s motion to amend the
scheduling order (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part; and plaintiff’s motion to reschedule the pretrial
conference (ECF No. 71) is DENIED as moot.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of September, 2021.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?