Mori et al v. Mongold et al

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
In re: 	:
: 	Case No. 25-50950
Kenneth Furry-Mongold and 	: 	Chapter 7
John Mongold, 	: 	Judge Nami Khorrami
:
Debtors. 	:
:
:
Judith Mori, et al., 	:
:
Plaintiffs, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Adv. Pro No. 25-02031
:
John Wayne Mongold, et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
:
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’AMENDED MOTION TO EXTEND
THE DISCOVERY CUT-OFF DATE (DOC. 38)
________________________________________________________________
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 2, 2026
Case 2:25-ap-02031 Doc 55 Filed 06/02/26 Entered 06/02/26 15:19:03 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 7

2
I. 	Introduction and Procedural Posture
Before the Court is a motion filed by Judith Mori and Allure & Wellness Management
Services, LLC (the “Plaintiffs”) to extend the discovery deadline in this adversary proceeding from
April 10, 2026, to April 24, 2026.1 The Motion seeks to extend the Discovery Cut-Off Date from
April 10, 2026, to April 17, 2026. The Amended Motion seeks to extend the Discovery Cut-Off
Date by an additional week, to April 24, 2026. John Wayne Mongold and Kenneth Furry-Mongold
(collectively, the “Defendants”), who are the debtors in the underlying chapter 7 case have
objected.2 The Plaintiffs filed their reply.3 The Defendants filed a sur-reply without seeking leave
of Court.4 	The Court has therefore not considered the Sur-Reply. See LBR 9013-1(c); Kolesar v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 814 F. App’x 988, 990 (6th Cir. 2020) (stating that a sur-reply filed without leave
of court “was not properly before” the trial court); In addition, on April 24, 2026, the Plaintiffs
filed a motion for sanctions, although that motion is not currently before the Court.5 The Amended
Motion and related filings were discussed at a pretrial conference on May 13, 2026, and the Court
took the matter under advisement.6 For the reasons stated, the Amended Motion is granted.
1 Pls.’ Mot. to Extend (the “Motion”), Dkt. No. 32; Pls.’ Am. Mot. to Extend (the “Amended Motion”), Dkt. No. 38.
The discovery cut-off date contained in the scheduling order entered by this court is the last day on which a discovery
motion can be filed (the “Discovery Cut-Off Date”). Scheduling Order § IV (the “Scheduling Order”), Dkt. No. 12.
This date was originally set as March 2, 2026. Id. At a pretrial conference on March 11, 2026, the Discovery Cut-
Off Date was extended to April 10, 2026. Agreed Order (the “Agreed Order”), Dkt. No. 25.
2 Defs.’ Obj. (the “Objection”), Dkt. 33; Defs.’ Supp. Obj. (the “Supplemental Objection”), Dkt. No. 41.
3 Pls.’ Reply (the “Reply”) Dkt. No. 43.
4 Defs.’ Sur-Reply (the “Sur-Reply”), Dkt. No. 44.
5 On April 24, 2026, the extended deadline Plaintiffs have requested in the Amended Motion, the Plaintiffs filed a
motion for sanctions based upon alleged spoliation of electronically stored information. Pls.’ Mot for Sanctions (the
“Sanctions Motion”), Dkt. No. 46. On May 15, 2026, the Defendants filed their opposition to the Sanctions Motion.
Defs.’ Opp. (the “Sanctions Opposition”), Dkt. No 47. On May 22, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a reply. Pls.’ Reply (the
“Sanctions Reply”), Dkt. No. 50. The Court will hold a pretrial conference on June 10, 2026, to discuss scheduling
an evidentiary hearing on the Sanctions Motion. Notice of Hr’g, Dkt. No. 52.
6 Connor Organ (“Mr. Organ”) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Andrew Kamensky (“Mr. Kamensky”) appeared
on behalf of the Defendants, Edward Cahill appeared on behalf of the Office of the U.S. Trustee, and Myron Terlecky,
the chapter 7 trustee, appeared on his own behalf.
Case 2:25-ap-02031 Doc 55 Filed 06/02/26 Entered 06/02/26 15:19:03 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 7

3
II. 	Positions of the Parties
The Plaintiffs seek a two-week extension of the Discovery Cut-Off Date for the sole
purpose of filing a discovery motion. Am. Mot. 1, Dkt. No. 38. They seek this extension because
their counsel, Mr. Organ’s wife gave birth to their newborn child on April 7, 2026, two weeks
before the anticipated due date. Id. After making an early arrival, the newborn child then returned
to the hospital for emergency care from April 11 – 13, 2026. Id. As a result, Mr. Organ was away
from work to be with his family from April 7, 2026 through April 20, 2026. 	Id. 	Due to this
“significant and unforeseen person[al] circumstance,” the Plaintiffs assert that they were unable to
finalize their discovery motion prior to April 24, 2026. Id. 1-2. In response, the Defendants assert
that they “are sincerely sympathetic to counsel’s family circumstances and do not question the
legitimacy or seriousness of those events.” Supp. Obj. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 42. Instead, the Defendants
argue that the Plaintiffs did not show with sufficient specificity the nature of the discovery dispute
that they wished to present to the Court. Obj. ¶¶ 2-15, Dkt. No. 33; Supp. Obj. ¶¶ 7-8, Dkt. No.
42.
III. 	Analysis
Civil Rule 16 (made applicable by Bankruptcy Rule 7016) provides the Court “formidable
case-management authority,” including the power to set and enforce deadlines. Columbia Gas
Transmission Corp. v. Zeigler, 83 F. App’x 26, 31 (6th Cir. 2003) (citation modified). 	But the
Court also has the discretion to modify a deadline set in a scheduling order for “good cause.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).7 “We have specified that district courts should measure ‘good cause’ mainly
by reference to two factors. The moving party's diligence in attempting to meet the case
7 Section XIV of the Scheduling Order provides that it can be modified “in order to meet a bona fide emergency, to
avoid irreparable injury or harm, or as may otherwise be necessary to do substantial justice.” Scheduling Order § XIV,
Dkt. No. 12. Although this language differs from the “good cause” language of Civil Rule 16(b)(4), § XIV does not
set a different standard – it just uses different language to say the same thing.
Case 2:25-ap-02031 Doc 55 Filed 06/02/26 Entered 06/02/26 15:19:03 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 7

4
management order's requirements is the primary measure, but possible prejudice to the party
opposing the modification is also relevant.” Taylor v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (In re Onglyza),
93 F.4th 339, 349 (6th Cir. 2024). 	The good cause standard thus promotes efficient case
management: it balances the need to hold parties to deadlines imposed by the Court, while
preserving the Court’s discretion to make adjustments based upon the unexpected difficulties that
sometimes arise in litigation. 3 M OORE 'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 16.14 (3rd. ed. 1997).
Courts applying these principles recognize that serious illnesses and other forms of family
turmoil confronting an attorney can establish good cause for an extension. See, e.g., Allied Domecq
Retailing USA v. Schultz (In re Schultz), 254 B.R. 149, 154 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2000) (holding that
bankruptcy court abused its discretion by not extending time to appeal where counsel was
“suddenly and unexpectedly preoccupied with the physical and psychological care of his extremely
ill wife during the period in question”);8 OP Therapy, LLC v. Bryant Health Ctr., Inc., No. 2:10-
cv-00635, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5622, at *10 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 18, 2012) (allowing thirty-day
extension of discovery and dispositive motion deadlines in light of counsel’s family emergency);
see also In re LaFrance, 311 B.R. 1, 24 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2004) (“When an attorney has a
temporary illness . . . the court has a duty to ensure that the illness does not affect the administration
of justice. Where time is not of the essence, continuances ought to be granted or other
accommodations made.”); Stark-Romero v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Co. (AMTRAK), 275 F.R.D. 544,
549-50 (D.N.M. 2011) (“A lawyer should be able to show excusable neglect and good cause when
he or she has unexpected turmoil in life.”).
In such circumstances, courts typically grant extensions tailored to the emergency that gave
rise to the request. OP Therapy, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5622, at *10 (granting thirty-day extension
8 Schultz was not a Rule 16(b)(4) case as it involved the extension of the deadline to file an appeal set by Bankruptcy
Rule 8002. 254 B.R. at 153. Nonetheless, its approach to deadlines is relevant here.
Case 2:25-ap-02031 Doc 55 Filed 06/02/26 Entered 06/02/26 15:19:03 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 7

5
but rejecting longer one as unwarranted); Malan v. RKB Indus., Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00025, 2023
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91347, at *10 (D. Utah May 23, 2023) (granting a two-week extension of
dispositive motion deadline due to counsel’s family emergency but denying longer extension); Trs.
of the Mich. Laborers' Health Care Fund v. Salisbury Lawn Serv., L.L.C., No. 21-12355, 2023
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73575, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 27, 2023) (same); see also Staples v. Caremark,
L.L.C., No. SA-08-CV-831-XR, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75219, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2009)
(“A two-week medical leave does not justify a disproportionate six-month extension of the
discovery deadline.”).
The Plaintiffs here have diligently sought discovery, and discovery issues were a
significant topic of discussion at pretrial conferences held on December 10, 2025 and March 11,
2026. On March 11, 2026, the Court extended the Discovery Cut-Off Date to April 10, 2026, to
allow additional time for supplemental discovery responses to be produced before the filing of any
discovery motion. 	The Agreed Order memorializing that ruling accordingly required the
Defendants to provide supplemental discovery responses and produce twenty categories of
documents on April 2, 2026, and a privilege log on April 6, 2026 – just days before the extended
April 10, 2026, Discovery Cut-Off Date. Agreed Order ¶¶ 4, 5(a)-(u), 5(t)(i), Dkt. No. 25. The
record thus demonstrates that the Plaintiffs diligently sought discovery and attempted to ensure
that they would have all of the Defendants’ discovery responses in hand prior to filing any
discovery motion.9 The Court has no reason to doubt that the Plaintiffs would have timely filed
their discovery motion on April 10, 2026, but for the early arrival of Mr. Organ’s child.
9 The Defendants’ own recitation of the discovery history confirms that the Plaintiffs have diligently sought discovery.
Obj. ¶¶ 2, 6-14, Dkt. No. 33 (setting forth the history of discovery responses, supplementations, and meet and confer
discussions).
Case 2:25-ap-02031 Doc 55 Filed 06/02/26 Entered 06/02/26 15:19:03 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 7

6
The Amended Motion is also appropriately limited both in scope and duration. 	The
extension requested is only two weeks and is for the sole purpose of filing a discovery motion. It
is thus tailored to the emergency that gave rise to the request. The extension is consistent with the
deadline the Court would have considered had Mr. Organ known of the potential issue regarding
the arrival of the child in time to raise it at the March 11 pretrial.
Finally, the Defendants did not assert that they would suffer any prejudice from a two-
week extension of the Discovery Cut-Off Date. 	And just weeks before opposing the Amended
Motion, the Defendants had jointly proposed a May 11, 2026 Discovery Cut-Off Date. 	Joint
Proposed Order, ¶¶ 3, 7, Dkt. No. 23. This confirms the absence of prejudice to the Defendants.
The Defendants have not argued or shown how they will be prejudiced by a two-week extension
of the Discovery Cut-Off Date, nor can the Court independently discern any such prejudice.10
IV. 	Conclusion
The birth of a child is a milestone event in the life of any family. But even where it proceeds
as smoothly as possible, the arrival of a child can bring significant upheaval. And when there are
complications, the upheavals increase exponentially. Based upon the circumstances asserted here
– which are not challenged by the Defendants – Mr. Organ reasonably sought an extension of the
Discovery Cut-Off Date. The Court will not penalize the Plaintiffs because Mr. Organ prioritized
his family at a crucial time in their lives. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have
10 The Court notes that, in the Sanctions Opposition, the Defendants assert that they are prejudiced by the fact that the
Sanctions Motion should have been brought months earlier, perhaps as early as November 2025. Sanctions Opp’n 7,
Dkt. No. 47. That issue, however, is not presently before the Court. This Order does not address the broader question
of whether the Sanctions Motion should have been filed earlier, and all such questions (like any other issue going to
the merits of the Sanction Motion) are preserved for future determination. The question of prejudice that is presently
before the Court is limited to whether the Defendants suffered any prejudice from the fact that the Sanctions Motion
was filed on April 24, 2026, rather than April 10, 2026.
Case 2:25-ap-02031 Doc 55 Filed 06/02/26 Entered 06/02/26 15:19:03 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 7

7
demonstrated good cause. The Amended Motion is therefore granted, and the Discovery Cut-Off
Date is extended to April 24, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Copies to:
Andrew Kamensky
Connor Organ
John Wayne Mongold, 8550 Trail Lake Drive, Powell, OH 43065
Kenneth D Furry-Mongold, 8550 Trail Lake Drive, Powell, OH 43065
Case 2:25-ap-02031 Doc 55 Filed 06/02/26 Entered 06/02/26 15:19:03 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 7