# Brown v. Harris

> District Court, S.D. Mississippi · February 28, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10814665

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Mississippi
- **Decided:** February 28, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10814665

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

GLEN DAVID BROWN, Jr., and PLAINTIFFS
GINA BROWN

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:23-cv-3074-KHJ-MTP

TENNESSEE STEEL HAULERS, LLC DEFENDANT

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to
Complete Discovery and to Extend All Other Pending Deadlines, Including Trial [68]. Even
though three case management orders have been entered in this matter,1 the parties yet again
request a continuance. In the Motion [68], the parties say that they have a scheduled mediation
set for March 27, 2025, and “[i]t is anticipated that the parties will participate in good faith to
reach a resolution of this matter.” [68] at 1. But, failing a fruitful mediation, the parties say that
they “will require additional time to finalize outstanding discovery matters and to depose
designated experts.” Id.
Amendment of the scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4). The Court finds that the parties have failed to demonstrate good cause. Indeed, the
mere possibility that the parties may, or may not, settle this case at some future time is too
speculative for this Court to base a decision to extend the deadlines a fourth time on that basis
alone. See Moreno v. Poverty Point Produce, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 275, 276 (S.D. Tex. 2007).

1 See Orders [21] [43] [50]. This not including other extensions of the parties’ expert designation
deadlines. See Orders [52] [59] [63].
Moreover, a review of the docket confirms that the parties have received ample time to
conduct and complete discovery in this matter. The parties do not explain why they cannot
finalize outstanding discovery requests prior to the March 3, 2025, discovery deadline—which
has been extended on three occasions. And, if the parties have chosen to delay discovery by
avoiding costs in hopes of settling this matter, the caselaw is clear that such aspirations do not

warrant good cause to amend the scheduling order. See, e.g., Rivera v. Cnty. of Willacy, 2007
WL 1655303, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 6, 2007).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete
Discovery and to Extend All Other Pending Deadlines, Including Trial [68] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 28th day of February, 2025.
s/Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10814665. Public record. Not legal advice.