United States District Court, D. Kansas
LASHONE MIDDLETON-THOMAS and GUINANS CAROL CLEVELAND, Plaintiffs,
PIAT, INC. f/k/a ServePro of Olathe/Lenexa, Inc., Defendant.
SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
P. O'Hara, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
have filed a motion asking the court to modify the scheduling
order by extending the deadline for the
completion of discovery by sixty days (ECF No. 81).
Plaintiffs have shown good cause for a small extension, but
not one as extensive as requested. Thus, the motion is
granted in part and denied in part.
to modify a scheduling order are governed by Fed.R.Civ.P.
16(b)(4), which provides, “A schedule may be modified
only for good cause and with the judge's consent.”
“In practice, this standard requires the movant to show
the ‘scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite [the
movant's] diligent efforts.'” “While a
scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly
entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel
without peril, rigid adherence to the . . . scheduling order
is not advisable.”Ultimately, whether to modify the
scheduling order lies within the court's sound
amended scheduling order set December 20, 2017, as the
discovery deadline. Plaintiffs served interrogatories and
requests for production of documents in August, 2017.
Defendant responded to such discovery in September, 2017.
Thereafter, the parties engaged in multiple discussions about
the sufficiency of defendant's responses, and plaintiffs
requested and received multiple extensions from the court for
bringing a motion to compel discovery should the parties not
resolve their discovery disputes. Fortunately, the parties
did resolve their disputes, and defendant produced more than
5, 000 additional pages of documents between December 14,
2017, and December 19, 2017.
assert that, despite their counsel's diligence, she is
unable to review the newly produced documents, much less
depose witnesses that are identified based on that review or
seek further written discovery based on that review, before
discovery ends on December 20, 2017. The court finds
plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause for a short extension
of the discovery deadline to allow their counsel more time to
conduct any follow-up discovery resulting from the recently
produced documents. The scheduling order therefore is amended
discovery shall be commenced or served in time to be
completed by February 2, 2018.
final pretrial conference is rescheduled from January 19,
2018, to February 15, 2018, at 10:30 a.m.,
in the U.S. Courthouse, Room 223, 500 State Avenue, Kansas
City, Kansas. No later than February 8,
2018, defendant shall submit the parties'
proposed pretrial order as an attachment to an e-mail
directed to firstname.lastname@example.org. It
shall be in the form available on the court's website
(www.ksd.uscourts.gov), and the parties shall affix
their signatures according to the procedures governing
multiple signatures set forth in paragraphs II(C)(2)(a) &
(b) of the Administrative Procedures for Filing, Signing, and
Verifying Pleadings and Papers by Electronic Means in Civil
order to preserve the trial date earlier set by the court,
the deadline for filing potentially dispositive motions shall
remain March 1, 2018.
other provisions of the original and first amended scheduling
orders shall remain in effect. The schedule adopted in this
second amended scheduling order shall not be modified except
by leave of court upon a showing of good cause.
 ECF No. 14, as amended by ECF No.
Gorsuch, Ltd. v. Wells Fargo
Nat'l Bank Ass'n, 771 F.3d 1230, 1240 (10th Cir.
2014) (quoting Pumpco, Inc. v. Schenker Int'l,
Inc., 204 ...