Nancy Rosecrans v. Dart Adamson & Donovan, LLC; Adamson & Hoggan LLC dba Hoggan Lee Hutchinson; and Eric Lee

Rosecrans · United States District Court for the District of Utah · June 8, 2026 · No. 2:24-cv-00472-HCN-DBP

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah grants in part Plaintiff Nancy Rosecrans’s motion to amend the scheduling order in her employment-discrimination action. The court finds good cause based on Plaintiff’s medical restrictions but grants only an additional 45 days of fact discovery, extending subsequent deadlines, and cautions that further extensions will require a showing of severe hardship.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Utah
Writing for the Court
Dustin B. Pead
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Utah
Decision date
June 8, 2026
Docket number
2:24-cv-00472-HCN-DBP
Procedural posture
Plaintiff moved to amend the scheduling order to obtain an additional 90 days of fact discovery and corresponding extensions of subsequent deadlines. Defendants opposed the requested extension.
Standard of review
A scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4); good cause requires the movant to show that the deadlines could not be met despite diligent efforts and to provide an adequate explanation for the delay.
Precedential value
Unpublished district court memorandum decision and order; persuasive value only.
Parties
Nancy Rosecrans v. Dart Adamson & Donovan, LLC, Adamson & Hoggan LLC dba Hoggan Lee Hutchinson, Eric Lee
Disposition
other

Topics

motion to amenddiscovery disputecivil procedureada / disabilityemployment law

Practice areas

civil procedureemployment lawdisability discrimination

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Rosecrans established good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to modify the scheduling order and extend fact discovery.
  2. If good cause existed, whether the requested 90-day extension and extensions of subsequent deadlines were warranted.

Holdings

  1. Rosecrans's documented medical restrictions established good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to amend the scheduling order because they made participation in discovery difficult despite her participation in discovery efforts.
  2. The court granted only 45 additional days of fact discovery, rather than the requested 90 days, and extended all subsequent deadlines accordingly.

Key quotations

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides that scheduling orders “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” (Standard)
The schedule is amended to provide an additional 45 days of fact discovery from the date of this order with an extension of all other subsequent deadlines. (Order)

Factual background

Rosecrans, formerly a paralegal for defendants, was involved in a serious auto-pedestrian accident that caused multiple severe injuries and impaired her ability to sit, stand, move, and lift heavy objects. After returning to work, she requested a disability accommodation, which defendants denied, and she was terminated in August 2021. In the litigation that followed, she asserted that medical restrictions, medication side effects, and cognitive difficulties prevented her from completing fact discovery within the existing schedule.

Procedural history

Nancy Rosecrans brought eight claims against her former employers and Eric Lee, including claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and claims concerning alleged employment promises. She moved for an amended scheduling order based principally on medical restrictions following a serious accident. The district court granted the motion in part, allowing 45 additional days of fact discovery and extending subsequent deadlines, while indicating that further extensions would not be granted absent severe hardship.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…