Maher v. Johnson

Background

Plaintiffs Dennis P. Maher and The Mary E. Maher Residuary Trust sued Ralph C. Johnson and Global Factors, LLC. Plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to compel production of three categories of documents. They also sought to modify the scheduling order under Rule 16(b)(4), which requires a party seeking a schedule change to show good cause. The court denied both motions.

The court entered an initial scheduling order in November 2022. It later extended the deadlines so that depositions would be completed by June 2, 2023, fact discovery by June 30, 2023, and all discovery by July 28, 2023. The court had previously stated that no further extensions would be granted. On June 1, the parties requested another extension, but the court denied that request for lack of good cause. Plaintiffs then filed the present motion on June 29, one day before fact discovery closed, seeking to extend fact discovery to September 8, depositions to August 25, and all discovery to September 29, 2023.

Why the Court Denied the Schedule-Change Request

The court held that plaintiffs had not shown good cause to modify the scheduling order. The parties had discussed outstanding document issues on March 21, when the discovery deadlines were approaching. Plaintiffs did not send a deficiency letter until May 26 and did not file the motion until June 29. The court stated that plaintiffs could have raised the dispute earlier, which would have given the court time to consider the request and, if appropriate, allow defendants to produce documents before the deposition and fact-discovery deadlines.

The court also noted that plaintiffs had previously represented that they needed more time to complete depositions, but disclosed in this motion that they had not taken the depositions. It found that plaintiffs offered no good reason for their delay and no good cause for extending the schedule.

Why the Court Denied the Motion to Compel

The court stated that discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case, including the importance of the discovery and whether its likely benefit outweighs its burden or expense. It found that plaintiffs had not shown that the requested discovery met that standard.

Requests 9 and 10 sought communications between defendants and their auditors. The court found that these requests were based on a mistaken equivalence between financial statements prepared under generally accepted accounting principles and non-generally accepted accounting principles, and that plaintiffs had not shown relevance.

Requests 13, 22, and 23 sought bank records, bank statements, and proof of payments. The court found these requests overbroad and unduly burdensome, and stated that the case did not present an issue about how much plaintiffs invested or received in return. Although some documents might have had marginal relevance, the court found that the requests swept too broadly.

Requests 15 through 19 sought contracts executed by defendants’ customers. The court characterized these requests as a fishing request at that stage of the case.

Disposition

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel and denied their motion to modify the scheduling order. It directed the parties to be prepared to discuss a trial date at the post-discovery conference scheduled for August 3, 2023.