Paice LLC v. Hyundai Motor Company
1:12-cv-00499
D. MarylandJul 8, 2014Background
- Plaintiffs Paice, LLC et al. sue Hyundai Motor Company et al. in the District of Maryland.
- Intervenor Toyota moves for a protective order; Defendants move to extend fact discovery for a limited purpose.
- Toyota had previously intervened to oppose a then-pending motion to compel and produced certain Toyota-Toyota litigation materials under a stipulation.
- Defendants sought deposition by written questions to Toyota; the May 30 discovery deadline loomed, prompting requests for extended time.
- Court analyzes good-cause under Rule 16(b)(4) and related scheduling order/Local Rule constraints, weighing diligence and prejudice.
- Court grants Defendants' extension for a limited purpose and Toyota's protective order; allows cross-examination of Toyota by live deposition by July 31, 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discovery extension for a limited purpose is proper | Plaintiffs contend extension violates scheduling order and filing deadlines. | Defendants argue diligence and need to complete deposition-related discovery justify extension. | Granted |
| Whether Toyota's protective order should be issued | Toyota's documents and deposition materials require protection from disclosure. | Protective order is necessary to control the scope and handling of sensitive Toyota materials. | Granted |
| Whether notices of deposition by written questions were timely and proper | Late notices and proximity to deadline show lack of diligence and improper timing. | Delays were due to late production; parties negotiated other depositions; timing remains workable. | Granted |
| Whether cross-examination of Toyota entities by live deposition should be allowed | Delay impacts plaintiffs; live deposition is unnecessary. | Live cross-examination is necessary to authenticate and understand materials. | Granted; live deposition allowed by July 31, 2014 |
Key Cases Cited
- Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Elec. Motor Supply, Inc., 190 F.R.D. 372 (D. Md. 1999) (scheduling orders require good cause for modification)
- Dilmar Oil Co., Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 986 F. Supp. 959 (D.S.C. 1997) (good-cause analysis includes diligence and prejudice factors)
- Tawwaab v. Virginia Linen Service, Inc., 729 F. Supp. 2d 757 (D. Md. 2010) (diligence as hallmark of Rule 16(b)(4) good-cause standard)