Case 1:18-cv-01473-LJV-JJM Document 16 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION AND ORDER
`
`18-cv-01473-LJV-JJM
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`_______________________________________
`
`AMY CAMERON,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. (“UPS”),
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the court is the parties’ joint motion [15]1 seeking a 60-day extension of
`
`the remaining deadlines of my February 13, 2019 Case Management Order (“CMO”) [13]. For
`
`the following reasons, that motion is reluctantly denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` DISCUSSION
`
`I am no fan of CMOs. I trust counsel to progress their cases as they see fit,
`
`resorting if necessary to the remedies under Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 37 to move the case along.
`
`But I do not make the Rules. Rule 16(b)(1) states that the court “must issue a scheduling order”,
`
`and “federal courts have no more discretion to disregard [a] Rule’s mandate than they do to
`
`disregard constitutional or statutory provisions”. Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S.
`
`250, 255 (1988).
`
`
`
`
`
`Nor am I free to disregard Rule 16(b)(4), which states that “[a] schedule may be
`
`modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent” (emphasis added). My CMO
`
`reminded the parties of that “a finding of ‘good cause’ depends on the diligence of the moving
`
`
`1
`Bracketed references are to CM/ECF docket entries. Unless otherwise indicated, page references
`are to numbers reflected on the documents themselves rather than to the CM/ECF pagination.
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01473-LJV-JJM Document 16 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`party”. [8], p. 3 (citing Parker v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 204 F.3d 326, 340 (2d Cir.
`
`2000)). “Good cause exists where the moving party is unable to comply with a required deadline
`
`despite the exercise of due diligence.” George v. City of Buffalo, 789 F. Supp. 2d 417, 425
`
`(W.D.N.Y. 2011); Parker, 204 F.3d at 340.
`
`
`
`
`
`The motion states that the parties “spent the . . . month [after the April 26, 2019
`
`initial mediation] in discussions with each other and the mediator . . . in an attempt to amicably
`
`resolve this matter”, and that “[d]ue to these protracted discussion, the formal discovery process
`
`has been delayed”. [15], p. 1. However, both the CMO and this court’s Alternative Dispute
`
`Resolution (“ADR”) Plan make clear that mediation does not furnish good cause for an extension
`
`of CMO deadlines. See CMO [13], ¶12 (“[t]he continuation of mediation sessions shall not delay
`
`or defer other dates set forth in this Case Management Order”); ADR Plan, §4.1(c) (“[t]he
`
`referral of a case to ADR does not delay or defer other dates established in the Scheduling
`
`Order”).
`
`In any event, even if participation in mediation could permissively delay the
`
`deadlines of the CMO, the parties offer no explanation as to what discovery occurred in the
`
`approximately two months preceding the initial mediation or in the last two months since their
`
`settlement discussions concluded. Nor do they offer any explanation as to why they could not
`
`have pursued discovery during those periods.
`
`
`
`
`
`The fact that both parties are requesting the extension is also irrelevant. See
`
`Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Camden Securities, Inc., 2013 WL 12058576, *2 (C.D. Cal.
`
`2013) (“the fact that the plaintiffs allegedly do not oppose the requested extension does nothing
`
`to show actual good cause for the extension”); Shemendera v. First Niagara Bank N.A., 288
`
`F.R.D. 251, 253 (W.D.N.Y. 2012) (“the absence of prejudice to the non-moving party . . . does
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-01473-LJV-JJM Document 16 Filed 08/01/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`not satisfy the good cause requirement”); 3 Moore’s Federal Practice §16.14[1][b] (Mattthew
`
`Bender 3d ed. 2019) (“The existence or degree of prejudice . . . is irrelevant to the moving
`
`party’s exercise of diligence and does not show good cause”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`If it were solely up to me, I would not hesitate to grant the requested extension.
`
`However, “[m]y discretion to grant that relief is limited by Rule 16(b)(4), which requires ‘good
`
`cause’ for an extension”. Shemendera, 288 F.R.D. at 253. Since good cause has not been shown,
`
`defendants’ motion [15] is denied, and the current CMO deadlines remain in effect.
`
`Notwithstanding those deadlines, the parties are free to conduct further discovery at such times
`
`and upon such terms as they may agree, but they may not seek the court’s assistance in doing so.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: August 1, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Jeremiah J. McCarthy
`
` JEREMIAH J. MCCARTHY
`
` United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`