Arriola v. 658-660 Amsterdam Corp.

Background

The court addressed Defendants’ request to extend the fact-discovery deadline so Defendants could take Plaintiff’s deposition. A case-management and scheduling order had been issued on August 23, 2021. On September 25, 2023, the court directed the parties to provide a case-status update because discovery had ended. The parties then requested, with Defendants’ consent, an extension through October 30, 2023, and Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis ordered that fact discovery would conclude on that date.

The parties did not conduct the depositions they had discussed, and they did not request additional discovery time during the following year. After the court requested a case update on November 4, 2024, defense counsel argued that discovery remained outstanding and asked the court to sanction Plaintiff, including by striking the complaint and dismissing the case. Plaintiff responded that fact discovery had ended and indicated an intent to seek partial summary judgment. The court later ordered Defendants to explain why they should be allowed to depose Plaintiff after the discovery deadline. Defendants submitted a letter seeking an extension, and Plaintiff opposed the request.

Legal standards

Under Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. In this setting, good cause generally requires the party seeking an extension to show that, despite due diligence, it could not reasonably meet the deadline. The party seeking the change has the burden of showing good cause, and diligence is the central focus.

The court also discussed Rule 6(b), which allows an extension after a deadline for excusable neglect. The court held that Rule 16(b), rather than Rule 6(b), governed because a scheduling order was in place. The court stated that, even if Rule 6(b) applied, Defendants had not shown excusable neglect.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Defendants failed to show good cause under Rule 16(b). Defendants argued that defense counsel reasonably believed Plaintiff had abandoned the case because Plaintiff allegedly did not respond to emails and telephone calls. But Defendants had not served a deposition notice, served other discovery demands, requested more time before the deadline, or sought relief from the court based on Plaintiff’s alleged failure to participate.

The court held that Defendants’ assumption that Plaintiff had abandoned the case, combined with their failure to act on that assumption, did not show due diligence. The court also noted that Plaintiff had failed to move the case forward by not taking certain Defendants’ depositions, despite indicating a desire to do so. The court concluded that the parties’ failures to advance the case and follow the discovery deadlines did not justify extending discovery.

Disposition

The court denied Defendants’ motion to extend fact discovery. It ordered that the parties’ summary-judgment motions were due January 31, 2025; opposition briefs were due February 14, 2025; and reply briefs were due February 21, 2025. This order did not decide any summary-judgment motion.