United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
STEVEN D. BRUMBACK, Plaintiff,
WURTH BAER SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
M. Hood, Judge
civil litigation, deadlines are of crucial importance and
time is usually not on the side of those who treat deadlines
cavalierly. In this action, Plaintiff moved to modify certain
dates in the scheduling order. Specifically, Plaintiff
requested an extension of time in which to identify expert
witnesses and for an extension of expert or opinion
here, Plaintiff's motion fails to demonstrate good cause
that justifies modifying the scheduling order. Any need for
additional time to identify an expert witness or complete
expert discovery appears to be of Plaintiff's making
since Plaintiff filed requests for written discovery almost
two months late. As a result, Plaintiff's motion to
modify the scheduling order is DENIED.
5, 2019, Plaintiff moved to modify the deadline for
identification of expert witnesses and the deadline for
completion of expert discovery. [DE 18]. In the Court's
initial scheduling order, the deadline for the Plaintiff to
identify expert witnesses was on June 1, 2019, and the
deadline for completion of expert or opinion discovery falls
on July 15, 2019. [DE 15].
Court ordered expedited briefing on the motion to modify the
scheduling order. [DE 19]. Defendant responded in opposition.
[DE 20]. Plaintiff did not reply in support of the motion and
the time to reply has passed. As a result, this matter is
ripe for review.
argues that amendment of the scheduling order is required
because the Defendant, at least at the time the motion for
amendment was filed, had not responded to written discovery
requests. But Defendant's response in opposition tells a
different story. As Plaintiff admits and Defendant notes, it
appears that Plaintiff made written discovery requests on
April 26, 2019, over two months past the February 21, 2019,
deadline for written discovery requests in the Court's
scheduling order. As such, any need for additional time to
identify potential expert witnesses or complete expert
discovery appears to have been caused by Plaintiff's lack
of due diligence. As a result, Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate that the deadlines could not be reasonably met
despite due diligence on the part of the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate that Defendant will
not suffer prejudice as a result of modification to the
scheduling order. If the requested extensions are granted,
they will likely require other deadlines and hearings in the
Court's scheduling order to be moved. These more
extensive modifications will likely relay the entire
litigation and may prejudice the Defendant. Furthermore,
granting Plaintiff's requested extensions will likely
shorten the amount of time for Defendant to file dispositive
motions. As such, it appears that the requested extensions
may prejudice the Defendant.
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause that justifies
modifying the scheduling order. As a result, Plaintiff's
motion must be denied.
moves for modification of the scheduling order under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 6. But, as this Court previously
explained in another case, Rule 16 governs modifications to
scheduling orders. Century Indem. Co. v. Begley Co.,
323 F.R.D.237, 240 (E.D. Ky. 2018).
that does not mean that Rule 6 has no applicability. This
Court has acknowledged that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has never adequately grappled
with the interplay between Rules 6 and Rule 16. See
Id. at 240-41. Both rules are addressed below.