Sylva Corporation, Inc. v. SafetyFirst Specialty Contracting Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Sylva Corporation, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SafetyFirst Specialty Contracting, Inc,
SafetyFirst Playground Maintenance LLC, and
SafetyFirst Playground Surfacing LLC,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-3745 (JWB/SGE)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Motion to Amend Pretrial Scheduling Order
by Defendants SafetyFirst Specialty Contracting, Inc, SafetyFirst Playground Maintenance
LLC, and SafetyFirst Playground Surfacing LLC (collectively, “SafetyFirst”). (Dkt. 151.)
Specifically, SafetyFirst seeks an extension of the deadline to file motions to amend the
pleadings from October 1, 2026, to November 1, 2026. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court denies the Motion.
ANALYSIS
A pretrial scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the
judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 	“The primary measure of good cause is the
movant’s diligence in attempting to meet the order’s requirements.” 	Sherman v. Winco
Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 716 (8th Cir. 2008). “[W]hile diligence is the primary factor
for assessing good cause, nothing limits the Court’s broad discretion in establishing and
enforcing the deadlines in the scheduling order.” Portz v. St. Cloud State University, No.
CASE 0:24-cv-03745-JWB-SGE Doc. 160 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
16-1115, 2017 WL 3332220, at *3 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2017) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). “Good cause may be shown by pointing to a change in the law, newly
discovered facts, or another significant changed circumstance[.]” Ellingsworth v. Vermeer
Mfg. Co., 949 F.3d 1097, 1100 (8th Cir. 2020).
SafetyFirst seeks to amend the scheduling order to extend the motion to amend
deadline by thirty days to November 1, 2026. (See Dkt. 146, at 4.) SafetyFirst argues that
there is good cause to do so because Sylva submitted delayed and incomplete responses to
their discovery requests that SafetyFirst could not review and assess before the October 1,
2026, motion to amend deadline. 	SafetyFirst argues that once it is able to complete the
review of Sylva’s recent discovery responses, it may seek to amend its Answer to assert
counterclaims for tortious interference, violations of the Lanham Act and/or the Minnesota
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and/or malicious prosecution. 	Sylvan objects to the
Motion, arguing that SafetyFirst has not been diligent and is responsible for any delays in
discovery that led to these circumstances. The Court agrees.
The Complaint in this matter was filed on September 26, 2024. (Dkt. 1.) The Court
issued the first Pretrial Scheduling Order on December 12, 2024, and a deadline to amend
pleadings or add parties was originally set for March 7, 2025. (Dkt. 17.) SafetyFirst was
therefore entitled to serve discovery on Plaintiff any time thereafter.
During the two years this case has been pending, the Court has permitted two
amendments of the Complaint, made various adjustments to the scheduling order, and
presided over two motions to dismiss. SafetyFirst had multiple opportunities to seek the
relevant discovery and to assert counterclaims but did not. Given this posture, the argument
CASE 0:24-cv-03745-JWB-SGE Doc. 160 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
that SafetyFirst does not yet have enough information to determine whether any of the
above-mentioned counterclaims may be brought is difficult to credit. 	Counterclaims are
typically brought at the outset of the case or soon into the discovery process. 	Here,
discovery has been ongoing for almost two years. 	If SafetyFirst believed that it needed
certain information to assess potential counterclaims, it could have served discovery
requests crafted to elicit that information many months ago. 	Instead, SafetyFirst waited
until August 12, 2026, fifty days before the amended motion to amend deadline of October
1, 2026, to do so. (Blades Decl. ¶ 9.) On September 10, 2026, SafetyFirst extended Sylva’s
deadline to respond to the August 12 th discovery requests to September 25, 2026.
(Boehning Decl. Ex A, at 3-4.) Although the motion to amend deadline would be just days
away when responses were due, SafetyFirst did not request an extension to the deadline at
that time. 	(See id.) 	It first did so on September 29, 2026, two days before the deadline.
(Id. at 1-2.) Counsel for Sylva could not meet and confer meaningfully on the issue before
the 	deadline, 	which 	caused 	SafetyFirst 	to 	file 	this 	Motion. 	(Id.) 	Under 	these
circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that SafetyFirst has been diligent in attempting
to meet the order’s requirements and does not find good cause to amend the scheduling
order as requested.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Motion to Amend the Pretrial
Scheduling Order (Dkt. 151) is DENIED.
Date: October 13, 2026 	s/Shannon G. Elkins
SHANNON G. ELKINS
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:24-cv-03745-JWB-SGE Doc. 160 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3