Strauser et al v. Stephen L LaFrance Holdings Inc et al, No. 4:2018cv00673 - Document 249 (N.D. Okla. 2020)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; granting 198 Motion to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s); granting 201 Motion for Discovery; granting 232 Motion to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) (tjc, Dpty Clk)

Download PDF
Strauser et al v. Stephen L LaFrance Holdings Inc et al Doc. 249 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA THE UNITED STTES OF AMERICA, ex rel. J. DOUGLAS STRAUSER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STEPHEN L. LAFRANCE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 18-CV-673-GKF-FHM OPINION AND ORDER Both sides have filed motions to extend or modify the current Scheduling Order to permit additional discovery.1 Plaintiff has also filed a motion to take additional depositions.2 The issues have been fully briefed and a telephone hearing was held on February 7, 2020. In broad terms both sides contend they have diligently conducted discovery but have been unable to complete necessary discovery within the current deadline because of actions or inaction of the other side or non-parties. The responses generally question the diligence of the other side, the relevance of additional discovery, and seek to deny or limit the other sides’ requested discovery. The court is persuaded that both sides have been reasonably diligent in their discovery efforts. The court is also persuaded that the general areas of additional party and non-party discovery set forth in the motions are relevant for discovery purposes and 1 Defendants’ First Motion for an Extension to Complete Third-Party Fact Discovery [Dkt. 198]; Relator’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Discovery by Thirty Days. [232]. 2 Relator’s Expedited Motion for Leave to Depose Defendants’ Likely Trial Witnesses. [Dkt. 201]. Dockets.Justia.com necessary for a fair resolution of the case on its merits. The court therefore finds good cause to extend the current Scheduling Order. Although the parties request a thirty or sixty day extension, the court finds that a ninety day extension of all dates is more realistic. Each side may take ten additional depositions. A separate Scheduling Order will be entered. The court expects a high level of cooperation between the parties to complete the discovery process. If disputes arise which cannot be resolved by good faith efforts of the parties, appropriate motions shall be promptly filed. Responses shall be filed within seven days, and replies within three days. Defendants’ First Motion for an Extension to Complete Third-Party Fact Discovery, [Dkt. 198], Relator’s Expedited Motion for Leave to Depose Defendants’ Likely Trial Witnesses, [Dkt. 201], and Relator’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Extend Discovery by Thirty Days, [Dkt. 232], are hereby GRANTED as set forth herein. The briefing schedule for future discovery matters is altered as further set forth herein. SO ORDERED this 14th day of February, 2020. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.