Jones v. DG Retail, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JADE JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
DG RETAIL, LLC and DOLLAR GENERAL
CORPORATION ,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-2232-JWB-ADM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Leave to Amend the
Scheduling Order. (ECF 23.) By way of this motion, the parties seek an extension of the
scheduling-order deadlines related to mediation, expert disclosures, physical and mental
examinations, discovery completion, submission of the proposed pretrial order, the pretrial
conference setting, and filing dispositive motions. As explained below, the parties’ motion is
denied because they have not shown good cause for any extension.
A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4). To establish good cause, the moving party must show that the scheduling
order deadline could not be met despite diligent efforts. Tesone v. Empire Mktg. Strategies, 942
F.3d 979, 989 (10th Cir. 2019). The good-cause requirement “obligates the moving party to
provide an adequate explanation for any delay” and show diligent efforts to meet the deadline
imposed. Id. at 988. Courts are more likely to find good cause when the moving party has been
generally diligent and the need for additional time was neither foreseeable nor the fault of the
moving party. Id. at 989. However, carelessness or “failure on the part of counsel to proceed
promptly with the normal processes of discovery and trial preparation” are not compatible with a
Case 2:25-cv-02232-JWB-ADM Document 24 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 4

2
finding of good cause. Id. The court is “afforded broad discretion in managing the pretrial
schedule.” Rimbert v. Eli Lilly & Co., 647 F.3d 1247, 1254 (10th Cir. 2011).
The parties have not demonstrated that they have been diligent in attempting to meet the
current scheduling-order deadlines. The court already allowed a lengthy discovery period for this
case. The parties were free to begin discovery by June 13, 2025, at the latest. See FED. R. CIV.
26(d)(1) (parties may seek discovery after the Rule 26(f) conference in most cases). This should
have been an adequate time period for the parties to complete discovery if they had been diligent
throughout the discovery period. But, in the past five months of discovery, the docket reflects that
the parties have only exchanged written discovery (ECF 16-19), and plaintiff has designated five
non-retained experts (ECF 22).
The parties’ motion contends that an extension is necessary because “despite their best
efforts,” the parties have been unable to schedule mediation “due to continuing conflicts with the
mediator’s schedule” and “have yet to conduct depositions” though they are “proactively working
on determining dates for such depositions.” (ECF 23, at 2.) Neither of these reasons demonstrates
good cause for an extension. As for the parties’ mediation scheduling issues, the court first notes
that it typically will not grant extensions of case-management deadlines simply because of the
parties’ mediation or settlement efforts. Indeed, the court specifically cautioned the parties in its
order dated September 9, 2025, that its extension of the mediation deadline to November 11 “will
not constitute good cause to extend any other deadlines or settings in the case schedule, regardless
of the mediation outcome.” (ECF 21.) The court expects the parties to explore the possibility of
settlement in parallel with meeting other case-management deadlines. Thus, the parties’ difficulty
in scheduling mediation is not a valid reason to extend all scheduling order deadlines.
Case 2:25-cv-02232-JWB-ADM Document 24 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 4

3
Likewise, the parties’ difficulty in scheduling depositions does not establish good cause.
The motion does not explain why the parties did not begin their deposition discovery planning
earlier to ensure they could finish deposing the witnesses by the November 26 discovery deadline,
or why defendant did not conduct the discovery it says it needs “to determine the necessity of
retaining expert witnesses.” (ECF 23, at 2.) Under these circumstances, the court cannot conclude
that the parties have been diligent in meeting the scheduling order deadlines. Therefore, the parties
have not demonstrated good cause to amend the scheduling order.
That said, the parties are free to stipulate to conducting discovery after the discovery
deadline so long as any ongoing discovery does not interfere with other court-imposed deadlines
or delay the briefing of or ruling on dispositive motions or other pretrial preparations. See Eppley
v. SAFC Biosciences, Inc., No. 20-2053-TC-ADM, 2020 WL 7353865, at *2 (D. Kan. Dec. 15,
2020) (Rule 29(a) allows the parties to stipulate to depositions occurring after the discovery
deadline). The court urges the parties to utilize such stipulations to move this case forward.
However, under these circumstances the court will not be available to resolve any disputes that
may arise during the course of such extended discovery.
In addition, the state of affairs has made it impractical to proceed with any pretrial-
conference-related activities or dispositive motions. Accordingly, the court vacates the December
8 deadline to submit a proposed pretrial order, cancels the December 18 pretrial conference, and
vacates the January 30, 2026 deadline to file dispositive motions and motions challenging
admissibility of expert testimony. The court orders the parties to file, by December 15, a joint
status report as to when they anticipate discovery will be complete, including firmly-scheduled
dates for all remaining depositions. Upon receipt of that report, the court will reset these vacated
deadlines, the pretrial conference, and the motions deadline.
Case 2:25-cv-02232-JWB-ADM Document 24 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion for Leave to Amend the
Scheduling Order (ECF 23) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the current deadlines to submit a proposed pretrial
order, file dispositive motions, and file motions challenging admissibility of expert testimony are
vacated and the pretrial conference is cancelled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must file, by December 15, a joint status
report as to when they anticipate discovery will be complete, including firmly-scheduled dates for
all remaining depositions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated November 13, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Angel D. Mitchell
Angel D. Mitchell
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02232-JWB-ADM Document 24 Filed 11/13/25 Page 4 of 4