Bepex International, LLC v. Hosokawa Micron BV

Background

Bepex objected to United States Magistrate Judge John Docherty’s April 29, 2022 order addressing Bepex’s motion to extend scheduling deadlines and its request for a protective order temporarily preventing Hosokawa Micron, BV (identified as HMBV in the opinion) from taking Bepex’s deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).

Judge Docherty granted Bepex’s requests in part and denied them in part. Applying the requirement that a party show “good cause” to modify a scheduling order, he found that Bepex had shown enough diligence to justify some extensions. He considered the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, health concerns, the parties’ disputes over Attorney’s-Eyes-Only document designations, and the need for technical assistance in reviewing those documents. He also found that HMBV had not shown prejudice from a partial schedule modification.

Judge Docherty entered a fifth amended scheduling order, but limited the changes because the case was nearing its three-year anniversary. He reopened fact discovery only for HMBV to depose Bepex’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative and extended the deadline for certain non-dispositive motions and informal dispute resolution concerning remaining discovery disputes. He declined to extend deadlines for expert discovery, motions concerning expert discovery, dispositive motions, or trial readiness.

Standard of Review

The district court reviewed Judge Docherty’s order as a nondispositive magistrate-judge order. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and the local rules, such an order may be overruled only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The review is highly deferential; the district court does not reverse merely because it might have reached a different decision initially.

The Court’s Analysis

Bepex raised four objections. First, it argued that HMBV’s delays in producing documents prevented Bepex from acting diligently. The court concluded that Judge Docherty had already considered and rejected the argument that HMBV was solely responsible for the delays, and Bepex identified no clear error or legal mistake.

Second, Bepex argued that Judge Docherty improperly relied on Bepex’s delay in identifying its trade secrets. The court said this objection reflected disagreement with Judge Docherty’s discretionary decision rather than a clear error. Judge Docherty had found that Bepex’s own delay contributed to a discovery bottleneck, while also allowing a limited delay of HMBV’s deposition so Bepex could obtain assistance reviewing Attorney’s-Eyes-Only material.

Third, Bepex argued that Judge Docherty gave insufficient weight to the health problems of a key witness, Mr. Kimball. The court explained that Judge Docherty considered the witness’s reported hospitalization but found that Bepex had also contributed to delays. The health concerns supported giving Bepex additional time to prepare its Rule 30(b)(6) representative, but did not justify all of the extensions Bepex requested.

Fourth, Bepex argued that it should have been allowed to take additional depositions. The court found no clear error in limiting the schedule extension to HMBV’s deposition of Bepex’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Menendez overruled Bepex’s objections and affirmed Judge Docherty’s April 29, 2022 order. The court did not alter the limited discovery extensions or the other scheduling decisions in that order.