United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
Waddoups, District Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
M. WARNER, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Judge Clark Waddoups referred this case to Chief Magistrate
Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Before the court are Yardi Systems, Inc.'s
(“Defendant”) expedited motion to modify the
scheduling order and Entrata, Inc.'
(“Plaintiff”) five short form discovery motions.
The court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda
submitted by the parties. Pursuant to Civil Rule 7-1(f) of
the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court
for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral
argument is not necessary and will determine the motions on
the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR
initial matter, the court notes that there has been a great
deal of irregular briefing on the motions before the court.
For example, Plaintiff has filed several replies on short
form discovery motions, which is expressly not contemplated
or allowed by the court's short form discovery motion
rule, see DUCivR 37-1; Defendant has filed an
opposition memorandum on a short form discovery motion far in
excess of the 500-word limit required by the court's
short form discovery motion rule, see id.; and
Plaintiff has filed a sur-reply on a motion without leave of
court. While the court will consider that irregular briefing
in this instance, any future motion practice in this case
must adhere strictly to the applicable rules. Counsel for
both parties are admonished to read and follow the rules
pertaining to short form discovery motions and briefing. Any
future briefing filed in violation of any applicable rules
will be stricken and not considered by the court.
Defendant's Expedited Motion to Modify Scheduling
motion, Defendant seeks a six-month extension of all
unexpired deadlines in the schedule governing this case.
Plaintiff opposes any extension of those deadlines, except an
extension to allow depositions to occur through December 20,
to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
“[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and
with the judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4).
“In practice, this standard requires the movant to show
the scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite [the
movant's] diligent efforts.” Gorsuch, Ltd.,
B.C. v. Wells Fargo Nat. Bank Ass'n, 771 F.3d 1230,
1240 (10th Cir. 2014) (quotations and citation omitted)
(alteration in original).
Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) gives district courts wide
latitude in entering scheduling orders.” Burks v.
Okla. Pub. Co., 81 F.3d 975, 978 (10th Cir. 1996). The
Tenth Circuit reviews a district court's decision on a
motion to modify a scheduling order for abuse of discretion.
reflected in both parties' written submissions on this
motion, the discovery requested and produced to date in this
case is substantial. Furthermore, it appears that substantial
discovery still remains in this case, as both parties agree
that discovery is not fully complete. Indeed, by
Plaintiff's own admission, it is still continuing to
produce documents. The same holds true for Defendant.
Additionally, and again as admitted by Plaintiff, multiple
depositions are scheduled to take place after expiration of
the current fact discovery deadline.
after considering Plaintiff's arguments, the court cannot
say that Defendant has not been diligent in satisfying its
discovery obligations. The court is likewise unpersuaded by
Plaintiff's arguments concerning prejudice resulting from
granting Defendant's requested extension of the unexpired
deadlines in this case. Accordingly, and given the
circumstances described above, the court concludes that good
cause exists for granting Defendant's requested
motion is granted, and the schedule in this case is hereby
amended as follows:
Fact Discovery Cutoff:
Expert Report (party bearing burden of proof):
Expert Counter Report:
Expert Reply Report:
Expert Discovery Cutoff:
Trial Readiness: December
Plaintiff's Short ...