Opinion

Brown

Court
District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Filed
Dec 15, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 37.7%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT CHATTANOOGA

CHRYSTAL BROWN, )

) Case No. 1:23-cv-45

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) District Judge Curtis L. Collier

) Magistrate Judge Michael J. Dumitru

HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et )

al., )

)

Defendants. )

O R D E R

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for a sixty-day extension of the discovery

deadline set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 45). (Doc. 60.)

Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits “a schedule [to be] modified

only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Sixth Circuit

has recognized that “[a] court asked to modify a scheduling order for good cause ‘may do so only

if [a deadline] cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.”

Helena Agri-Enters., LLC v. AAA Turf, Inc., No. 22-1957/1967, 2023 WL 4842838, at *2 (6th Cir.

July 28, 2023) (quoting Marcilis v. Twp. of Redford, 693 F.3d 589, 597 (6th Cir. 2012) (alteration

in original)). Furthermore, “[t]he primary measure of Rule 16’s ‘good cause’ standard is the

moving party’s diligence in attempting to meet the case management order’s requirements.” Id.

(quoting Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002). “Another important

consideration for a district court deciding whether Rule 16’s ‘good cause’ standard is met is

whether the opposing party will suffer prejudice by virtue of the amendment.” Id. (quotation

omitted).

Here, both parties request an extension of the discovery deadline. They contend that

difficulties in scheduling depositions, trial conflicts amongst counsel, witness schedules, and the

holiday schedule have prevented them from completing discovery by the deadline, despite their

diligence. (Doc. 60 at 2.) Based on these assertions, and it appearing that granting the joint motion

will not disrupt the other deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order, the motion (Id.) is

GRANTED. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The discovery cutoff in this matter is hereby extended

through March 16, 2026. All other deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order (Doc. 45) remain

unaffected by entry of this Order.

SO ORDERED.

ENTER:

/s/

CURTIS L. COLLIER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.