Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00682/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00682-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHARMIAN JOINER, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:15-CV-682-WKW

 ) [WO]

TIM DAVIS, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and 

Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. # 25) and Plaintiff’s 

Supplemental Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and Motion for Leave to File 

Amended Complaint (Doc. # 33). Defendants filed a joint response to the motions 

(Doc. # 35), and Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. # 36). Plaintiff’s motions are due to be 

denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County on 

August 17, 2015. (See Doc. # 1). She alleges that Defendants are liable for unlawful 

retaliation, race and sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and outrageous conduct. 

(See Doc. # 8.) Defendants removed the action to this court on September 18, 2015. 

(Doc. # 1.) Defendant Tim Davis moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s original complaint

Case 2:15-cv-00682-WKW-SRW Document 37 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 6
2

(Doc. # 5), but in light of Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. # 8), that motion was 

denied (Doc. # 12). A Uniform Scheduling Order was entered on November 19, 

2015. (Doc. # 19.)

Plaintiff’s original counsel sought and was granted, for good cause, leave to 

withdraw from the case. (Doc. # 21.) Plaintiff’s current counsel filed a notice of 

appearance on January 29, 2016. (Doc. # 23.) Pursuant to the Uniform Scheduling 

Order, any motions to amend the pleadings or add parties were due on or before 

March 1, 2016. (Doc. # 19, at 2.) Plaintiff sought leave on March 26, 2016, to file 

an amended complaint. (Doc. # 25.) Plaintiff filed a renewed motion (Doc. # 33) 

seeking leave to amend the complaint and further seeking an extension of her 

deadline for expert witness disclosures, which was originally set for April 1, 2016 

(Doc. # 19).

II. DISCUSSION

A motion to amend the scheduling order is governed by Rule 16 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 16 provides that the scheduling order may only be 

modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). To show good 

cause, the moving party must establish that she was unable to meet the deadline 

despite her diligence. Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 

1998). The moving party fails to show good cause where the basis for the 

modification rests on information that she knew or should have known before the 

Case 2:15-cv-00682-WKW-SRW Document 37 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 6
3

relevant deadline. Kendall v. Thaxton Road, LLC, 443 F. App’x 388, 394 (11th Cir. 

2011). Where the moving party fails to seek out the information it needs to 

determine whether a modification is necessary, it has not acted diligently to meet the 

relevant deadline. Southern Grouts & Mortars, Inc. v. 3M Co., 575 F.3d 1235, 1241 

n.3 (11th Cir. 2009).

With respect to a motion to amend the complaint, Rule 15 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure provides that when a party moves to amend a pleading, the court 

should “freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Where 

the moving party seeks leave to amend the complaint after a scheduling order’s 

deadline for amending the pleadings, the moving party must first show good cause 

for deviation from the scheduling order under Rule 16. Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1419. 

These principles will be applied to the facts at bar.

A. Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint

Plaintiff fails to show good cause for allowing an untimely amendment to her 

complaint. It is true that Plaintiff’s current counsel appeared at a later hour of this 

litigation. Even accounting for this hiccup in the proceedings, Plaintiff and her 

counsel had ample time—approximately one month—between the notice of 

appearance and the deadline for amendments to pleadings. If there was some reason 

that Plaintiff and her counsel were unable to confer and prepare an amended 

complaint within this time period, Plaintiff has failed to provide it. Without any 

Case 2:15-cv-00682-WKW-SRW Document 37 Filed 05/10/16 Page 3 of 6
4

information indicating that Plaintiff was unable to meet the March 1, 2016 deadline 

for seeking amendments to the pleadings, it cannot be said that Plaintiff worked 

diligently to comply with the scheduling order. See Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1418.

Plaintiff’s counsel represents that the modifications he seeks to make are 

slight. This is all the more reason to expect that Plaintiff and her counsel could have 

made these modifications within the time allowed under the Uniform Scheduling 

Order. The amendments are not based on newly discovered information, but rather 

are based on facts that were apparent to Plaintiff throughout the course of the 

litigation. See Kendall, 443 F. App’x at 394. One month should be sufficient, absent 

extenuating circumstances, to seek out and compile the information necessary for 

amending the pleadings. See Southern Grouts, 575 F.3d at 1241. Plaintiff’s counsel 

offers the bare assertion that he was “unable to complete his interviews with Plaintiff 

prior to March 1, 2016,” (Doc. # 25, at 2), but he fails to explain why this was the 

case. This is insufficient to show good cause why he was unable to prepare an 

amended pleading in the time allotted.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has failed to show good cause, as required 

by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for allowing an amendment to 

the pleadings beyond the March 1, 2016 deadline provided in the Uniform 

Scheduling Order. To the extent Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint, her 

motions will be denied.

Case 2:15-cv-00682-WKW-SRW Document 37 Filed 05/10/16 Page 4 of 6
5

B. Motion to Modify Scheduling Order

In addition to seeking leave to amend the complaint, Plaintiff requests an 

extension of all discovery deadlines and dates in the Uniform Scheduling Order for 

a period of 60 days. Her counsel represents that he needs additional time to receive 

and review medical records pertaining to Plaintiff’s treatment for mental health 

issues associated with her claims. The deadline for disclosing expert witnesses was 

April 1, 2016, and Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of that deadline on 

March 30, 2016. Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for extending discovery 

deadlines.

The information that Plaintiff’s counsel seeks time to review was available to 

Plaintiff at the time she filed her initial complaint. See Kendall, 443 F. App’x at 

394. Though Plaintiff’s current counsel did not make an appearance until January 

29, 2016, he nonetheless had approximately two months to acquire medical records 

relating to Plaintiff’s treatment and determine which expert witnesses he intended to 

depose or call at trial. These facts militate against a finding that Plaintiff exercised 

the sort of diligence necessary for a modification of the scheduling order. Plaintiff’s 

counsel merely represents, without providing any further reason, that it is 

“impossible” for him to disclose experts at this time. (Doc. # 33, at 2.) This is 

insufficient to meet the Rule 16 standard.

Case 2:15-cv-00682-WKW-SRW Document 37 Filed 05/10/16 Page 5 of 6
6

For these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for allowing an 

extension of the discovery deadlines set forth in the Uniform Scheduling Order. To 

the extent Plaintiff seeks such an extension, her motions will be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Scheduling 

Order and Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. # 25) is DENIED. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion to Modify Scheduling 

Order and Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. # 33) is DENIED.

DONE this 10th day of May, 2016.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00682-WKW-SRW Document 37 Filed 05/10/16 Page 6 of 6