United States District Court, D. Minnesota
BENJAMIN HUDOCK, BREANN HUDOCK, and GERALD DELOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.; BEST BUY CO., INC.; BEST BUY STORES, L.P.; and BESTBUY.COM, LLC, Defendants. IVAN VILLA LARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.; BEST BUY CO., INC.; BEST BUY STORES, L.P.; and BESTBUY.COM, LLC, Defendants.
Katherine Menendez United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiffs in this matter moved to modify the scheduling
order, citing delays in discovery that had made the currently
order unworkable. (ECF No. 136.) The Defendants objected to
the Plaintiff's motion and proposed scheduling order.
(ECF No. 141.) During a telephonic hearing, the Defendants
clarified their position and agreed that a modest extension
would be appropriate, as long as the sequence of events
already agreed upon did not change. Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS the Plaintiff's motion to modify
the scheduling order with the modifications described below.
scheduling order required that substantial production of
documents be completed by November 15. The Defendants met
this deadline, but the production was larger than expected,
encompassing over 200, 000 documents. Additionally, the
Plaintiffs anticipate conducting up to 20 depositions.
Plaintiffs do not believe it the current March 1, 2019
deadline is reasonable to process this discovery.
scheduling order may be modified for good cause. Fed.R.Civ.P.
16(b). In these circumstances, “good cause” is
present when, despite the diligence of the moving party, the
existing schedule cannot reasonably be met. Advisory
Committee Notes to the 1983 Amendment of Fed.R.Civ.P. 16;
E.E.O.C. v. Prod. Fabricators Inc., 285 F.R.D. 418, 420 (D.
Minn. 2012). The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have been
diligent in pursuing discovery; however, the scope of
discovery has outpaced the Plaintiff's reasonable
resources. Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to
adjust the scheduling order by extending discovery by an
additional 60 days. To accommodate for this change, the
briefing schedule for the class certification motion is also
extended by 60 days.
HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Scheduling Order
(ECF 120) is modified as described below:
Discovery and Non-Dispositive Motions:
motions and memoranda related to class certification must be
Plaintiffs Motion due by August 1, 2019;
Defendants Response due by September 15, 2019;
Plaintiffs' Reply due by October 15, 2019.
discovery shall be commenced in time to be completed by May
1, 2019, with substantial completion of document productions
by November 15, 2018.
nondispositive motions and supporting documents relating to
fact discovery must be filed by May 15, 2019. Any other
nondispositive motions, including those which related to
expert discovery, shall be filed by September 1, 2019.
Nondispositive motions may be scheduled for hearing by
calling Kathy Thobe, Judicial Assistant to Magistrate Judge
Kate M. Menendez, 612-664-5140. All nondispositive motions
shall be scheduled, filed and served in compliance with Local
Rules 7.1 and 37.1.