REA Investments, LLC v. Novel Energy Solutions, LLC, 0:23-cv-01159

REA Investments, LLC (“REA”) moved to reopen discovery in a contract dispute against Novel Energy Solutions, LLC (“Novel”) after the court's fact discovery deadline had passed.
REA sought additional discovery about Novel’s relationships and agreements with certain firms, as well as more text messages, details on Novel’s privilege log, and more complete document production.
The case had been pending for two years; fact discovery closed nine months prior, and cross-motions for summary judgment were already briefed and under advisement.
The pretrial scheduling order required parties to seek modification for late discovery only with good cause and diligence.
The magistrate judge heard argument, requested supplemental briefing, and ultimately determined that the issues and documents REA now sought were apparent or available during the original discovery period.
The court concluded that reopening discovery would prejudice the trial-ready status and pending summary judgment deliberations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to reopen discovery after the deadline	Novel has withheld relevant documents and new facts have arisen, justifying reopening.	REA had adequate notice and was not diligent in seeking this discovery on time.	Denied; REA did not show good cause, and reopening would disrupt the litigation schedule.

Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2008) (primary measure of good cause for modifying scheduling order is movant’s diligence)
Bradford v. DANA Corp., 249 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2001) (pretrial scheduling orders streamline litigation and should not be modified lightly)
Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 457 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2006) (courts have broad discretion in enforcing scheduling order deadlines)