Dechaine v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CAROLYN DECHAINE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:23-cv-01134-KRS-LF
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND
EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE DEADLINE
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Expert Witness
Disclosure Deadline, filed October 10, 2025. Doc. 92. Ms. Dechaine seeks a three-week
extension of her deadline to make Phase 2 expert witness disclosures. Defendant opposes Ms.
Dechaine’s motion. Doc. 93. For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.
Following the Rule 16 Initial Discovery Conference on May 23, 2024, the Court set Ms.
Dechaine’s Phase 2 expert disclosure deadline to be Monday, December 2, 2024. Doc. 26 at 2.
The scheduling order also made clear that “[a]ny request for an extension must be made prior to
the expiration of the deadline.” Id. at 3.
The parties jointly moved on September 26, 2024, to extend multiple deadlines, including
an extension of Ms. Dechaine’s Phase 2 expert disclosure deadline to February 2, 2025. Doc. 33
at 1. The Court granted this extension. Doc. 34 at 1.
The parties jointly moved on December 2, 2024, to extend multiple deadlines, including
an extension of Ms. Dechaine’s Phase 2 expert disclosure deadline to May 2, 2025. Doc. 44 at 1.
The Court granted this extension. Doc. 45 at 1.
Case 1:23-cv-01134-KRS-LF Document 96 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 4

2
The parties jointly moved on January 30, 2025, to extend multiple deadlines, including an
extension of Ms. Dechaine’s Phase 2 expert disclosure deadline to August 8, 2025. Doc. 47 at 1.
The Court denied this motion based on the extensive delays in conducting an inspection of Ms.
Dechaine’s home and the lack of explanation as to why the inspection still had not taken place,
despite representations that the parties planned to complete it within thirty days of the October
23, 2024, status conference. Doc. 48 at 1. It stated that any renewed motions for extension would
need to include the date certain on which the inspection would take place and more details on the
remaining depositions that needed to be taken. Id. at 2. The parties filed an amended joint motion
on February 27, 2025, providing more background information on the delays in this case and
requesting the same extension. Doc. 49. However, the Court denied the amended motion because
the parties had not provided a date certain on which the inspection would take place nor provided
the necessary details regarding the remaining depositions that needed to be taken. Doc. 50.
The parties then requested a status conference with Judge Fashing, Doc. 53, which the
Court set for April 17, 2025, Doc. 54. The Court held this status conference, but counsel for Ms.
Dechaine did not attend. Docs. 59–61. The Court set a subsequent status conference for May 14,
2025, requiring the date certain of the inspection and the information about the remaining
depositions. Doc. 63; Doc. 66. The day after this status conference took place, the Court issued
an amended scheduling order setting Ms. Dechaine’s Phase 2 expert disclosure deadline on
August 28, 2025. Doc. 70 at 1.
On July 10, 2025, the parties again filed a joint motion to extend deadlines, including an
extension of Ms. Dechaine’s Phase 2 expert disclosure deadline to September 19, 2025. Doc. 78
at 2. The Court granted this extension. Doc. 79 (text-only entry).
Case 1:23-cv-01134-KRS-LF Document 96 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 4

3
Now, after extensions that moved Ms. Dechaine’s Phase 2 expert disclosure deadline nine
months from December 2024 to September 2025, Ms. Dechaine waited until three weeks after
the passage of that deadline to move to extend it once again by simultaneously filing her
disclosures and a motion for extension. Her explanation is that “coordination with both experts
proved more difficult than anticipated, particularly because of the extent to which her medical
conditions limit Ms. Dechaine’s availability.” Doc. 92 at 1. Ms. Dechaine’s explanation for the
delay is vague and inadequate. The “coordination with both experts” should have begun months
ago, and there are no details from which the Court can glean why the coordination was
exacerbated by Ms. Dechaine’s medical condition. Ms. Dechaine’s explanation also does not
address why she waited until three weeks after the September 19, 2025, deadline had passed to
request her extension.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) states, “A schedule may be modified only for
good cause and with the judge’s consent.” See also D.N.M.LR-Civ. 16.1 (“Modification of any
deadline in the Court’s scheduling orders, whether or not opposed, requires a showing of good
cause and Court approval.”). This standard requires the movant to “show the scheduling
deadlines cannot be met despite the movant’s diligent efforts.” Tesone v. Empire Marketing
Strategies, 942 F.3d 979, 990 (10th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6(b)(1)(B) further requires Ms. Dechaine to show that she failed to move to extend the deadline
before the expiration of the deadline because of excusable neglect. Ms. Dechaine has failed to
show in her belated motion that she made diligent efforts to meet the scheduling deadlines,
particularly given the months of extensions already granted due largely to Ms. Dechaine’s health.
Moreover, she has not even attempted to show that she failed to file her motion for an extension
Case 1:23-cv-01134-KRS-LF Document 96 Filed 11/10/25 Page 3 of 4

4
by September 19, 2025, because of excusable neglect. Further extensions therefore are not
appropriate.
The Court DENIES Ms. Dechaine’s motion for extension.
It is so ordered.
____________________________________
LAURA FASHING
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-01134-KRS-LF Document 96 Filed 11/10/25 Page 4 of 4