Haley v. Clark Construction Group-California, Inc.

Background

Plaintiff Lawrence Haley filed an ex parte application asking the court to modify the scheduling order and extend the fact-discovery deadline from August 19, 2019, to October 2, 2019. He attributed the request to documents that Defendant Clark Construction Group-California, Inc. allegedly produced late. Haley stated that the documents revealed more than six additional witnesses. The court held a hearing on August 22, 2019.

The application did not specifically identify the additional discovery Haley wanted. At the hearing, Haley’s counsel clarified that he sought to depose Bashir Zayid and Steve Highland, whose email addresses appeared in the produced documents.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 allows a scheduling order to be modified only for “good cause” and with the judge’s consent. The good-cause inquiry primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the change. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry ends and the request should be denied. The court also noted that district courts have broad discretion in controlling discovery.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Haley failed to show good cause. The allegedly late production consisted of five additional emails totaling 19 pages, which Clark Construction provided on August 6, 2019—weeks before the August 19 discovery cutoff. The court rejected Haley’s characterization of the production as “trial by ambush and document dumping.” It concluded that Haley could have sought to depose Zayid and Highland well before the deadline. The court also noted that some of the documents had already been produced and that Clark Construction had identified Zayid in a July 2019 discovery response. Based on these circumstances, the court found that Haley had not been diligent in seeking an extension.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Haley’s ex parte application to modify the scheduling order. The opinion does not state any other disposition of the case or claims.