Lovejoy v. CAMC Teays Valley Hospital, Inc.
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 23 MOTION by Hazel Lovejoy to Extend Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 11/7/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (mkw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
HAZEL LOVEJOY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-4991
CAMC TEAYS VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Complete Discovery,
ECF No. 23. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to this Court’s Scheduling Order entered March 19, 2014, ECF No. 7, all
depositions were to be completed and dispositive motions filed by October 30, 2014. 1 On October
30, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to extend the deposition completion deadline to
November 28, 2014. Also on October 30, 2014, Defendant moved for summary judgment.
On September 25, 2014, Defendant deposed Plaintiff. As explained by Plaintiff, somehow
resulting from that deposition, Plaintiff recognized a need for additional written discovery, and
possibly additional depositions, likely necessitating an extension of the discovery deadline. While
the parties agree that counsel on both sides were aware of the possibility of an extended deadline,
Defendant maintains that there was no agreement between the parties at that time.
1
The Court’s order adopted the scheduled suggested by the parties in the Rule 26(f)
Report of Planning Meeting, ECF No. 6.
Shortly thereafter, on September 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed an additional request for
production. Defendant promptly responded on October 17, 2014. The parties did not again discuss
the possibility of an extended discovery deadline until October 30, 2014. At that time, Plaintiff
contacted Defendant and requested an extended discovery period to allow Plaintiff to depose
CAMC personnel. Defendant refused to agree to an extension, informing Plaintiff that counsel had
already prepared and was in the process of filing a motion for summary judgment and supporting
memorandum.
II.
ANALYSIS
Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the Court to issue a scheduling
order defining deadlines for joining additional parties, amending pleadings, completing discovery,
and filing motions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3). Such orders can be modified after entry “only for good
cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). While not unsympathetic to
Plaintiff’s circumstances, the Court cannot agree that Plaintiff has shown good cause to modify the
extant scheduling order.
The parties have had ample time to conduct written discovery and take depositions. Here,
Plaintiff’s perceived need to conduct additional discovery developed in the course of Plaintiff’s
own testimony. Lacking more specific explanation, the Court struggles to imagine that the Plaintiff
could have learned anything new when she was deposed by Defendant that Plaintiff was not
already aware of prior to her deposition.
Even affording Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt on that point, Plaintiff’s counsel had just
shy of two weeks after receiving Defendant’s final responses to written discovery to develop an
agreement with Defendant regarding deposition deadlines. Instead, Plaintiff delayed such
discussions until the deadline had arrived and Defendant had already expended resources to
-2-
develop and file its summary judgment motion. Accordingly, Defendant would suffer prejudice if
the Court allowed further delay. The Court certainly recognizes that denying the instant motion
requires Plaintiff to proceed without the benefit of additional depositions, but that circumstance
flows from Plaintiff’s own course of action and cannot serve as good cause to unsettle the extant
deadlines.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Complete Discovery is
DENIED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order and Notice to counsel of
record and any unrepresented parties.
ENTER:
-3-
November 7, 2014
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?