Issue: What is necessary in the 8th Circuit to enlarge time on a deadline for a party to serve their expert disclosures and in which depositions are to be completed?
|Area of Law:||Litigation & Procedure|
|Keywords:||Enlarge time on a deadline; Good cause; Judge's consent|
|Cited Cases:||600 F.3d 934; 532 F.3d 709|
|Cited Statutes:||Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B)|
A motion to enlarge time should be granted if a party shows “due diligence in the timely development of this case for trial and the recent development of circumstances, unanticipated prior to the filing of the motion, which require that additional time be allowed.” The standard set forth in the rules is “good cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”). If the motion to extend a deadline in a scheduling order comes after the deadline has passed, the moving party also must show that he or she failed to act timely due to “excusable neglect.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).
The Eighth Circuit has addressed the “good cause” standard. “The 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 . . . [but the] ‘existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification and other factors may also affect the decision.” Bradford v. DANA Corp., 249 F.3d 801, 809 (8th Cir. 2001), quoted in Bowen v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 4:11CV3163 (D. Neb. Aug. 13, 2012). With respect to the “excusable neglect” element, the court has stated:
Excusable neglect is an “elastic concept” that empowers courts to accept, “where appropriate, . . . . late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as well as by intervening circumstances beyond the party’s control.” The determination of whether neglect is excusable “is […]