Enea v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Background

Giorgio Enea moved to extend the deadlines in the court’s scheduling order. He asked to extend the discovery deadline by approximately seven months and the later deadlines by approximately four to five months.

Enea said the extension was necessary because Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC purportedly disclosed that discovery was in the possession of its parent company, Daimler AG. Enea stated that Daimler AG was a foreign corporation and that serving it through the Hague Convention would take approximately three months. Daimler AG was not a defendant in the action.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 allows a scheduling order to be changed only for “good cause” and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that 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 motion should be denied.

The court found that Enea had not shown good cause. Enea did not raise the possibility of seeking discovery from Daimler AG until October 25, 2019, two weeks before discovery closed. According to his own motion, he had learned on July 23, 2019, that Mercedes-Benz USA purchased replacement sunroofs or their component parts from Daimler AG. The court concluded that Enea could have sought a subpoena for Daimler AG or raised the issue with the court in July, but instead waited more than three months and requested an extension only three days before the discovery deadline.

Disposition

The court denied Enea’s motion to extend deadlines. The order states that the court had denied the motion on November 8, 2019, and issued this order on November 12, 2019, explaining its reasoning. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.