Dechter v. The Mars Agency

Background

The court considered two requests: a joint motion to amend the Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, and the defendant’s motion for leave to file a summary-judgment motion. The court treated the joint motion as a request to reopen discovery, which had closed on April 18, 2025.

The Case Management Plan set March 3, 2025, as the deadline for fact discovery and April 18, 2025, as the deadline for expert discovery. It required requests to extend those deadlines to be made in writing before the deadlines expired and warned that mediation would not pause or change the schedule. The parties did not request an extension before the deadlines. They also failed to timely submit required status reports, and no motion to compel discovery was filed during the discovery period.

At a May 7, 2025, pretrial conference, the plaintiff’s counsel said that the plaintiff’s discovery requests remained pending. The court noted that discovery had closed and that neither party had indicated that it intended to file a dispositive motion. The parties later sought to reopen discovery, stating that they had concentrated on mediation and that their clients would be prejudiced without additional discovery. The plaintiff’s counsel also stated that an emergency medical procedure contributed to the failure to seek an extension.

Motion to Reopen Discovery

The court explained that reopening discovery requires good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). The party seeking additional discovery must show that the failure to obtain it was not caused by its own lack of diligence. Relevant considerations include the explanation for missing the deadline, diligence in seeking a schedule change, the importance of the discovery, the opportunity already available to obtain it, prejudice, and how soon trial is expected.

The court found that the parties had four months for fact discovery and six additional weeks for expert discovery, which was ample time for this case involving one plaintiff and claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The court found the parties’ assertion of diligence unsupported because, apart from initial disclosures, they had not conducted fact or expert discovery during the allotted period. The court also found that the parties knowingly chose to focus on mediation despite the warning that mediation would not suspend the deadlines.

The court further stated that prejudice resulting from the parties’ own lack of diligence does not establish good cause. Although the court recognized that a medical emergency could justify extending or reopening discovery, it found the current submission inadequate. The record did not clearly show when the emergency medical procedure occurred, whether it affected the ability to conduct discovery before the March 3 and April 18 deadlines, or why it prevented a timely extension request.

The court therefore denied the motion to reopen discovery, without prejudice to renewal with additional information about the timing of the medical procedure and its effect on discovery and extension requests. The court authorized the plaintiff to file a renewed motion under seal if it contains sensitive medical information, while filing a redacted version publicly.

Motion for Leave to File a Summary-Judgment Motion

The defendant also sought permission to file a summary-judgment motion. The court determined that the deadline for such motions was May 19, 2025. The defendant filed its letter motion on May 16, 2025, and the court treated the letter as a request to extend that deadline.

The court granted the motion for leave to file a dispositive motion and approved the parties’ proposed briefing schedule. Dispositive motions must be filed by August 30, 2025; opposition papers are due September 30, 2025; and reply papers are due October 15, 2025. The court also adjourned the deadlines in the existing Scheduling Order without a set date. The opinion did not decide the merits of any summary-judgment motion.