Have a scheduling order that is biting me.
The other side file a motion for a scheduling order and the Judge immediately signed it. It gave me less than 30 days to disclose expert witnesses.
The order stated that I was to disclose witnesses by June 30.
On June 30, I filed a motion for more time based on these facts:
1.The Plaintiff has been occupied with a family matter and is experiencing difficulty in finding and retaining expert witnesses at this time.
2.The Plaintiff never agreed to the Defendant's council proposed scheduling order, therefore never signed it.
3.The Plaintiff has prepared and sent to the Defendant a second request for admissions and first interrogatory request.
4. Until the Defendant properly answers these request the Plaintiff can not determine for what purpose an expert(s) is needed.

On July 7, the Judge made an entry denying the motion for the extension of time.

Now what?
Missouri

I am not an expert but I have been studying a lot for my own case and I am in Florida. The judge probably wondered why you waited until the due date to file your motion. By then it was too late. He could have been nice and signed it. However.... However, check Jurisdictionary and your State civil rules. Did you file a motion to compel discovery answers and production of documents?

But what I think you can do is check Civil Rules of Procedure in your state. You see, you must be allowed your due process rights. If there was a specific stipulation that discovery was closed (all discovery) by 6/30 that is a problem and I'm not sure what you could file to deal with that other than a Mandatory Judicial Notice and accompany it with a motion to compel and request for case management hearing?

If you do not have answers to discovery then how can you build your case for trial? The judge cannot deny you due process, and without discovery you would be at a disadvantage for trial which might be considered denying you due process. I hope that helps. Once again, that's my best guess.

I think you may have a problem:
Whether the Court relies upon either Rule 16(f) or Rule 37(b), sanctions are
warranted. Under Rule 16(f), Plaintiffs’ failed innumerable times in obeying
Scheduling and Discovery Orders. No substantial justification for repeated
noncompliance can be found. Plaintiffs cannot elude the impositions of sanctions,
including the imposition of costs, fees, and attorney fees. Weighing Rule 37(b) and
court precedents, a similar result must ensue.

Specific to New York State
Disclosure of expert witnesses is governed by CPLR 3101(d).
An important feature of this statute is the absence of a rigid time period for expert
disclosure to be made in response to a demand. However, failure to make disclosure sufficiently
in advance of trial can result in sanctions. Moreover, individual judges' rules as well as
scheduling orders may impose strict time limits.