Zarling v. Abbott Laboratories

Background

John Zarling brought an employment-related civil-rights case against his former employer, Abbott Laboratories. The opinion says he alleged discrimination based on age, marital status, and familial status; retaliation; a hostile work environment; defamation; and failure to pay severance required by an employment agreement.

The pretrial scheduling order set December 3, 2021, as the deadline for motions to amend the pleadings to add a punitive-damages claim. It set January 21, 2022, as the fact-discovery cutoff and February 4, 2022, as the deadline for non-dispositive motions relating to fact discovery. Zarling filed his motion to modify the scheduling order on February 25, 2022, after all three deadlines had passed. At the motion hearing, he withdrew his request to extend the fact-discovery deadline.

Zarling argued that Abbott’s delayed document production, disputes over redactions, and delays in scheduling depositions prevented him from meeting the deadlines. Abbott argued that Zarling had known about the deadlines well in advance, had not acted diligently, and would prejudice Abbott by shifting the schedule.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows a scheduling order to be modified only for “good cause” and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that the main measure of good cause is the moving party’s diligence in trying to meet the scheduling order. Because the deadlines had already passed, the District of Minnesota’s Local Rule 16.3(d) also required Zarling to show extraordinary circumstances.

Court’s analysis

For the punitive-damages deadline, the court rejected Zarling’s three arguments. First, although Abbott provided some disputed discovery after the deadline and Zarling raised some redaction issues before the deadline, Zarling knew he could seek an extension before the deadline expired. He chose not to do so because he was unsure whether he would ultimately need an extension. The court found that choice inconsistent with the required diligence.

Second, the court rejected Zarling’s argument that Abbott obstructed depositions. The record showed that Zarling knew as early as October that several depositions would occur after December 3 and agreed to those dates. The court said the relevant question was whether Zarling had acted diligently, not simply whether Abbott had been difficult to work with.

Third, the court rejected Zarling’s claim that Abbott had lulled him into believing that court intervention was unnecessary. Although Abbott encouraged the parties to meet and confer about discovery disputes, the court found no evidence that Abbott improperly prevented Zarling from seeking court relief. The court also found that Zarling understood both his ability to bring issues to the court and the importance of the deadlines.

For the discovery-motion deadline, the court found that Zarling believed a motion to compel might be necessary on January 21, before the February 4 deadline. The court concluded that he should have sought relief before the deadline expired, rather than waiting until February 25. Zarling identified no extraordinary circumstances that justified reopening the deadline.

Disposition

The court found that Zarling had shown neither good cause nor extraordinary circumstances to modify the scheduling order. It denied his motion as to the December 3 deadline for motions seeking to add a punitive-damages claim and declined to reopen the February 4 deadline for non-dispositive discovery motions. Because Zarling withdrew his request to extend the fact-discovery deadline, the court denied that request as moot. The order ultimately states that Zarling’s motion to modify the scheduling order was DENIED.