United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge.
Pending
before the Court is the Motion to Extend the Amended
Scheduling Order (Doc. 68) filed by
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant United Specialty Insurance
Company (“USIC”). Defendant/Counter-Claimant Dorn
Homes, Inc., (“Dorn”) has filed an opposition
(Doc. 72) and USIC has filed a reply (Doc. 74). For the
following reasons, the motion will be denied.
BACKGROUND
In or
around April 2017, Dorn became aware of alleged construction
defects in a subdivision of homes it had built in Prescott
Valley, Arizona. (Doc. 68 at 2; Doc. 72 at 2.) In response,
Dorn hired two engineering firms, Felten[1] and PGG, to
conduct an investigation. (Id.) Dorn also alerted
its insurance company, USIC, that it had potential exposure.
(Id.)
Through
its investigation, Dorn concluded that “two
interconnected issues”- specifically, expansive soils
and truss movement-had contributed to the damage. (Doc. 72 at
2.) As a result, “Dorn implemented certain repairs to
address these issues.” (Id.) Dorn then sought
reimbursement from USIC “in excess of $3, 700,
000.” (Doc. 74 at 2.) USIC denied this reimbursement
claim, and this lawsuit ensued.
On May
5, 2018, USIC filed its complaint. (Doc. 1.) In a nutshell,
USIC seeks declaratory relief concerning its insurance
coverage for the costs incurred by Dorn. (Doc. 68 at 2.)
On July
24, 2018, the Court issued a scheduling order that, among
other things, set (1) a fact discovery deadline of March 15,
2019, (2) expert disclosure deadlines of August 16, 2019 (for
the party with the burden of proof) or September 20, 2019
(party without the burden), (3) a deadline of January 3, 2020
for the close of “all” discovery, and (4) a
dispositive motions deadline of February 7, 2020. (Doc. 21.)
On
March 20, 2019, five days after the fact discovery deadline
had expired, the parties filed a stipulation requesting the
extension of various deadlines. (Doc. 30.)
On
March 25, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the parties' stipulation. (Doc. 31.) The Court stated:
Here, the parties' sole reason for seeking an extension,
including an after-the-fact extension of the fact discovery
deadline, is that “the trial schedule of counsel for
plaintiff” made it impossible to schedule certain
unspecified depositions before the fact discovery deadline.
(Doc. 30 at 1.) This is a particularly half-hearted attempt
to comply with Rule 16's “good cause”
requirement. When was the trial? How long was it? Was
Plaintiff's counsel already aware of it when the parties
agreed to the scheduling order in this case, which provided
eight months to complete depositions? Are the other three
attorneys who have made appearance on behalf of Plaintiff
incapable of conducting depositions? The absence of such
information, coupled with the belated timing of the extension
request and the fact that docket doesn't reflect the
service of any discovery, the noticing of any depositions, or
any other action over the last three months, strongly
suggests a showing of diligence can't be made here.
(Id. at 2.) The Court “grudgingly”
agreed to “a modest extension” of the fact
discovery deadline, extending it to May 3, 2019 (a seven-week
extension, rather than the 13-week extension to which the
parties stipulated). (Id.) The Court expressly
declined to extend any other deadlines. (Id.)
Because
the case had been reassigned to the undersigned judge, the
Court also issued an entirely new Amended Case Management
Order (Doc. 32), “altering various procedures and the
fact discovery deadline but otherwise retaining the deadlines
from the original Scheduling Order.” (Doc. 31 at 2.)
The Court further ordered that “any motion or
stipulation to modify the Amended Case Management Order . . .
will be viewed with disfavor by the Court and will be granted
only in the case of demonstrable good cause.”
(Id. at 2-3.)
On May
1, 2019, the parties filed a second stipulation to amend case
deadlines, requesting an extension of the fact discovery
deadline from May 3, 2019 to January 3, 2020. (Doc. 58.) The
parties asserted that good cause supported the request
because (1) “due to technology issues (corrupt files),
a supplemental disclosure of documents by USIC failed,
” (2) the parties were attempting to resolve a
discovery dispute, (3) “as in most cases, the
depositions of the key witnesses disclosed additional fact
witnesses that the parties may wish to depose, ” and
(4) “repairs of construction defects are
continuing.” (Id. at 3.)
On May
2, 2019, the Court granted the parties' stipulation and
extended the fact discovery ...