Blue Package Delivery, LLC v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc.
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:17-cv-04329
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Blue Package Delivery v. Express Messenger Systems, Judge Menendez granted Blue Package’s motion to amend the schedule and reopen discovery.
Blue Package Delivery, LLC and Express Messenger Systems, Inc. were affected by the revised deadlines. The order reopened or extended discovery-related activity and set new dates for motions and trial readiness.
What happened
Blue Package Delivery, LLC asked to change the scheduling order in its lawsuit against Express Messenger Systems, Inc., doing business as OnTrac. OnTrac opposed the request, arguing that Blue Package had caused much of the delay and that changing the schedule would be unfair.
The court described repeated discovery delays, including changes in Blue Package’s lawyers, problems handling discovery requests, an attorney’s stroke, and another law firm’s withdrawal. The court found that Blue Package had provided evidence of efforts to provide discovery information and that some delays resulted from its attorneys’ actions and an attorney’s illness.
The court found good cause for a modest schedule change and little prejudice to OnTrac. Judge Katherine Menendez granted the motion and set new deadlines for expert disclosures, fact discovery, motions, and trial readiness.
The detailed version
- Blue Package Delivery, LLC v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. · No. 0:17-cv-04329
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Mar. 13, 2019
Background
Blue Package Delivery, LLC moved to amend the amended scheduling order. Express Messenger Systems, Inc., doing business as OnTrac, opposed the motion. The litigation had experienced repeated delays, and several months had passed since discovery closed without discovery being conducted.
The court described problems beginning after OnTrac served discovery requests in January 2018. Blue Package’s first attorney sought to withdraw, and new counsel later learned that Blue Package had not received the discovery requests. Discovery responses remained late, and the court granted OnTrac’s motion to compel after Blue Package did not respond. The court also described deficiencies in the discovery process and the failure to serve discovery requests that Blue Package had prepared.
Further delays followed when Steve Ugland, the primary attorney working with Blue Package at Halpern Law Firm, suffered a stroke. Halpern later withdrew, citing Blue Package’s refusal to communicate or participate in the litigation. A third law firm appeared for Blue Package on January 14, 2019, and promptly filed the motion to amend the schedule.
Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 requires a party seeking to modify a scheduling order to show good cause. The primary measure of good cause is the moving party’s diligence. The court also considered whether the schedule change would prejudice OnTrac because Blue Package had not shown perfect diligence.
Blue Package argued that it had been as diligent as possible given the actions of its former attorneys. OnTrac argued that Blue Package itself caused much of the delay and that the requested change would prejudice OnTrac.
The court declined to assign blame among the parties and attorneys. It found evidence that Blue Package had provided discovery responses and information to its attorney and that at least some of the failure to conduct discovery was not tied to Blue Package’s diligence. The court considered the attorney-related problems and Ugland’s illness unusual circumstances that supported adjusting the schedule. The court expressly made no finding of professional misconduct or malpractice.
The court also found that OnTrac would suffer little prejudice and might benefit from reopening discovery. OnTrac would have an opportunity to conduct previously noticed depositions and learn more about Blue Package’s theory of the case. The court rejected OnTrac’s argument that the delay should result in no liability for Blue Package’s claims while allowing full recovery on OnTrac’s counterclaims.
Order
The court granted Blue Package’s motion to amend the scheduling order. The order set these deadlines:
- Expert disclosures: March 20,
- - Fact discovery: completed by May 15,
- - Non-dispositive motions and supporting documents: filed and served by May 15,
- - Dispositive motions: filed, served, and scheduled by June 15,
- - The case ready for a jury trial: October 7, 2019.
This was a scheduling and discovery order; it did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or counterclaims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.