United States of America, ex rel. v. Sightpath Medical, Inc.
- David Schultz
- 0:13-cv-03003
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In United States v. Cameron-Ehlen, Judge Schultz granted plaintiffs’ request to extend discovery and other deadlines by 90 days.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, whose discovery, motion, and trial-related deadlines were extended.
What happened
In United States of America, ex rel., et al. v. Cameron-Ehlen Group, Inc., et al., the plaintiffs asked to extend all remaining deadlines in the pretrial scheduling order by 90 days. The existing order required fact discovery by June 30, 2019, expert discovery by September 30, 2019, and trial readiness by March 1, 2020.
The court found good cause for the extension because discovery had been delayed by disputes, court review of potentially privileged documents, a government-attorney furlough, third-party discovery issues, and difficulties scheduling physician depositions. The court also found that any prejudice to the defendants did not outweigh the reasons for extending the schedule.
Judge David T. Schultz granted the request. Fact discovery was extended until October 17, 2019, all other remaining deadlines were extended by 90 days from their scheduled dates, and the trial-ready date was moved to June 1, 2020.
The detailed version
- United States of America, ex rel. v. Sightpath Medical, Inc. · No. 0:13-cv-03003
- David Schultz
- Apr. 30, 2019
Background
The plaintiffs requested a 90-day extension of all remaining deadlines in the court’s October 2018 Pretrial Scheduling Order, including the trial-ready date. The defendants opposed the request, arguing that the plaintiffs had not diligently pursued discovery and that extending the schedule would prejudice them.
The scheduling order required the parties to complete fact discovery by June 30, 2019, expert discovery by September 30, 2019, and other specified deadlines before a March 1, 2020 trial-ready date. Since the order was entered, both sides had sought court intervention concerning discovery responses. The opinion also notes a brief furlough of government attorneys, continuing court review of potentially privileged documents, a pending issue involving a third party’s response to a subpoena, and difficulties arranging depositions of physicians.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a court may modify a scheduling order for good cause. The primary consideration is the moving party’s diligence in trying to meet the existing deadlines. The court may also consider possible prejudice to the opposing party.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the plaintiffs had actively pursued discovery, even if not always at the pace the defendants preferred. The court would not count good-faith discovery disputes against either side, including disputes requiring confidential-document review. It also found that the remaining discovery was unlikely to be completed by the existing deadline regardless of the plaintiffs’ diligence, particularly because numerous physician depositions remained to be scheduled.
The court considered the defendants’ concern that the continuing case burdened their business and personal relationships. It concluded, however, that this concern did not outweigh the good cause supporting an extension and that any litigation-related prejudice was reduced by the court’s increased involvement in managing discovery.
Disposition
The court granted the plaintiffs’ Request to Extend Remaining Deadlines. It amended the scheduling order by requiring fact discovery to be completed on or before October 17, 2019; extending all other remaining deadlines by 90 days from the dates listed in the scheduling order; and requiring the case to be ready for trial on or before June 1, 2020. The order addressed case scheduling and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.