The Cascades of Iron River Holdings, LLC, and Benjamin T. Friedman v. Iron River Land Company, LLC, and Robert W. Possanza, Jr.

Summary

The court grants Defendants’ motion to extend discovery deadlines, finding good cause based on an isolated calendaring error and the need to permit meaningful discovery. The court denies the motion for a protective order as moot and directs the parties to meet and confer regarding outstanding discovery disputes. The court also grants Defendants leave to amend their answer to add a counterclaim concerning an unpaid promissory note and guaranty.

Holdings

1. Good cause existed under Rule 16(b)(4) to extend the discovery deadline because Defendants’ failure to serve discovery earlier resulted from an isolated calendaring mistake, the motion was filed promptly and before the cutoff, there was no bad faith or dilatory motive, and both parties would benefit from meaningful discovery without undue prejudice.
2. The parties were entitled to conduct full discovery during the extended discovery period; Plaintiffs’ unilateral refusal to participate in timely noticed depositions did not bar Defendants from obtaining discovery, although Plaintiffs could have sought relief under Rule 45.
3. The motion for a protective order was denied as moot because the parties had not yet met and conferred to narrow the discovery issues, and the discovery deadline was being extended.
4. Rule 13(a) did not waive Defendants’ proposed counterclaim merely because Defendants failed to assert it in their answer in the same litigation; leave to add the counterclaim was governed by Rule 15.
5. Defendants were granted leave under Rule 15(a)(2) to amend their answer to assert a counterclaim on the promissory note and guaranty.

Questions Presented

1. Whether good cause existed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to extend the discovery deadline after Defendants served written discovery too late for responses to be completed before the cutoff.
2. Whether Plaintiffs’ alleged unavailability and the timing of noticed depositions justified extending the discovery period.
3. Whether Defendants’ motion for a protective order should be denied as moot after the discovery deadline was extended.
4. Whether Rule 13(a) barred or waived Defendants’ proposed counterclaim because it was not asserted in the original answer.
5. Whether Defendants established grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to amend their answer to add a counterclaim.

Disposition

other