Wake Forest Acquisitions, L.P. v. Vanderbilt Commercial Lending, Inc., 2:15-cv-02167

Plaintiffs (Wake Forest Acquisitions, Shaffer parties) sued Vanderbilt Commercial Lending (VCL) and its president Gregory Cook for failing to fund a $14,060,000 construction loan and for related claims including fraud and breach of contract.
Plaintiffs repeatedly sought to depose Cook both as a percipient witness and VCL’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee; defendants repeatedly cited Cook’s health as a reason for delay but produced no medical documentation.
The parties stipulated multiple times to extend fact and expert discovery deadlines to accommodate Cook’s purported medical issues; the court amended the scheduling order accordingly.
Cook failed to appear for a noticed deposition on July 6, 2017 after plaintiffs’ counsel traveled three hours to the agreed location and waited; Cook provided post hoc explanations and never proposed alternate dates or produced medical evidence.
Plaintiffs moved for sanctions under Rule 37 seeking preclusion of Cook’s testimony and monetary fees; the magistrate denied the motion without prejudice and invited renewal if discovery were reopened.
Plaintiffs moved to reopen discovery solely to re-notice and renew their sanctions motion; no opposition was filed and the district court granted reopening for that limited purpose.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is good cause to reopen discovery limited to renewing plaintiffs’ Rule 37 sanctions motion for Cook’s failure to appear at a noticed deposition	Plaintiffs were diligent: repeatedly arranged deposition, agreed to multiple continuances, traveled to noticed deposition, attempted post-no-show scheduling, and promptly moved for sanctions and to reopen discovery	Defendants implicitly argued delay was due to Cook’s health and sought time extensions; they offered no medical documentation or dates and did not oppose the reopen motion	Court held there is good cause to reopen discovery only to allow plaintiffs to re-notice and renew their sanctions motion, finding plaintiffs diligent and other factors (no opposition, no imminent trial) support reopening

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (establishes the Rule 16 good-cause/diligence standard for modifying scheduling orders)
Sheridan v. Reinke, [citation="611 F. App'x 381"] (9th Cir. 2015) (applies Johnson good-cause requirement to motions to reopen discovery)
Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166 (10th Cir. 1987) (district court’s decision to extend or reopen discovery is committed to its discretion)
Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (three-part inquiry to demonstrate diligence under Rule 16)
Hood v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (motions to reopen are often granted when opposing party’s conduct caused delay)