Order | Filed: June 24, 2026
| Entered: June 24, 2026
Ly v. EBSCO Industries, Inc. et. al.
Civil Rights: Other | Massachusetts
Order on Motion for Extension of Time
Magistrate Judge Christopher L. Morgan: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting in part and denying in part 127 Defendants' Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines. In their motion, Defendants seek to have the court modify its scheduling order to extend the discovery deadlines in this matter by thirty days and extend the dispositive motion deadlines by more than five-months (the latter request may have been an error, as discussed below). Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, [a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent. See also Dkt. No. 96 , Scheduling Order (Either party may seek relief from any deadline or discovery limitation by filing a motion and demonstrating good cause for relief.). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence (or lack thereof) of the moving party more than it does on any prejudice to the party-opponent. Flores-Silva v. McClintock-Hernandez, 710 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2013).
As to the discovery deadlines, Defendants seek an extension to permit Plaintiff to supplement his responses, to permit Defendants to review Plaintiff's supplementation for sufficiency, and to take Plaintiff's deposition, (Dkt. No. 127, at 1). In addition, the requested extension would potentially allow sufficient time for Plaintiff to take the depositions of four former or current employees of Defendant EBSCO, as well as a 30(b)(6) deposition, all of which Plaintiff noticed one week before the current discovery deadline, (id., at 2 n.1). Although the parties were unable to complete discovery prior to the deadline, it was not due to a lack of diligence by the Defendants. Defendants timely noticed Plaintiff's deposition and timely raised concerns regarding Plaintiff's written discovery responses. Indeed, the parties' inability to complete discovery by the existing deadline was simply the result of their attempts to resolve their discovery disputes without court intervention, as required under the rules. Therefore, Defendants have established good cause for an extension. As to defendant's claim that he will be prejudiced by the extension, he cites both economic prejudice and professional prejudice, (Dkt. No. 130 , at 12). As to the former, it appears to be an argument that his damages continue to accrue during the pendency of this litigation, (id.). As to the latter, Plaintiff appears to be asserting that he will lose business opportunities or income because of the delay, (id.). Although Plaintiff does not fully develop either argument, both categories of alleged harm appear to be garden variety economic damages that may be recoverable, with interest, if Plaintiff prevails. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to establish that he would be prejudiced by the extension. Moreover, even if Plaintiff could not recover money damages for alleged harms caused by the extension, the prejudice to him would be minimal given the brevity of the requested extension.
The court notes that Plaintiff states in his opposition that he does not oppose the requested extension provided that the court imposes discovery safeguards with the extension, (Dkt. No. 130 , at 9-10). The fact Plaintiff is unconcerned about any prejudice from the extension if the court grants his requested safeguardsnone of which would address the economic or professional prejudice he claims he would suffer from an extensiononly further highlights the lack of any actual prejudice here. In any event, the proposed safeguards, which appear to stem from ongoing discovery disputes between the parties, would impose general obligations on the parties beyond what is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules. To the extent the parties have specific discovery disputes they are unable to resolve, they may file a motion seeking relief from the court. But the court will not impose blanket obligations on the discovery process based on claims made in opposition to Defendants' motion to extend. Finally, the court notes that Defendants' proposed amended schedule includes a more than five-month extension of the dispositive motion deadlines, (Dkt. No. 127 , at 2). Neither Defendants' motion nor the accomp... (truncated)