Order | Filed: August 14, 2026
| Entered: August 14, 2026
RICHMOND v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, NC, THE
Labor: Other | North Carolina Middle
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery
TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Joint Motion for Brief Extension of Mediation and Discovery Deadlines and Substitution of Mediator, in that (A) Kenneth Carlson is substituted as mediator and (B) the mediation deadline is extended to 09/25/2026, but (C) the discovery deadline remains unchanged. On 11/20/2025, the parties filed 7 Joint Rule 26(f) Report proposing, inter alia, a discovery deadline of 08/16/2026 and mediation "later in the discovery period," with a designated mediator. Via Text Order that same day, the Court (per the issuing Magistrate Judge) adopted 7 Joint Rule 26(f) Report with one modification: moving the discovery deadline forward one day to 08/17/2026, so that it fell on a Monday, rather than a Sunday, for the avoidance of confusion. In 11 Joint Motion (filed on 08/14/2026, i.e., the last business day before the discovery deadline and de facto mediation deadline), the parties now have requested an extension of those deadlines to 09/25/2026, as well as substitution of the mediator. As support for those requests, 11 Joint Motion states that "[t]he parties have concluded the majority of discovery including depositions but need the extension to complete the mediation, and to complete any limited discovery remaining following the mediation," as well as that "[t]he currently designated mediator... does not have any availability," but the parties have agreed on another mediator "who has agreed to mediate [the] case by the [proposed new] deadline." Those statements do not establish "good cause" within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) for the requested extension of the discovery deadline, because they do not show why the parties, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have completed any remaining discovery by the existing discovery deadline. To the extent 11 Joint Motion relies on the assertion that the requested extension "will not delay the case," because "[t]he trial date set in this case is April 5, 2027 and will not be affected due to th[e proposed] extension," the parties have ignored the fact that, by operation of Local Rule 56.1(b), the dispositive motions deadline runs from the discovery deadline, such that delaying the close of discovery delays the completion of briefing on dispositive motions, leaving less time for resolution of dispositive motions in advance of the established trial date, which could cause a delay in the trial (among other undesirable consequences). The parties also arguably have failed to show that they exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to schedule the mediation with the designated mediator; however, the Court possesses an independent interest in seeing that the parties conduct mediation. Accordingly, the Court has approved substitution of the mediator and has extended the mediation deadline. Issued by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 08/14/2026. (AULD, L.)