Scotto v. Gorilla Ladder Company et al

Filing 62

ORDER denying 52 Motion for Summary Judgment. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/25/2019 at 3:00 PM. Trial shall commence on 2/5/2019. The Court will enter a separate order regarding the final pretrial conference and trial schedule. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 11/6/2018.(DGC, nvo)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Allen F. Scotto,

No. CV17-2838-PHX-DGC
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Gorilla Ladder Company, a Minnesota
corporation also known as Gorilla Ladders,
et al.,

13
14

Defendants.

15
16
This case has a troubling history. The parties repeatedly have disregarded Court

17
18

orders, and the Court has concluded that action is required.

19

A.

Case History.

20

This case was removed to federal court on August 23, 2017. Doc. 1. The Court

21

set a case management conference for October 3, 2017, and required the parties to file a

22

Rule 26(f) report. Doc. 7. The report proposed a schedule that included Plaintiff’s expert

23

disclosures on January 12, 2018, defense expert disclosures on March 30, 2018, and

24

rebuttal expert disclosures on May 14, 2018.

25

Management Order adopted this schedule. See Doc. 19 at 2.

26
27
28

Doc. 17 at 2.

The order imposed some additional specific requirements.

The Court’s Case

It provided this

direction on the content of expert reports:
As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 26 (1993
Amendments), expert reports under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) must set forth “the

3

testimony the witness is expected to present during direct examination,
together with the reasons therefor.” Full and complete disclosures of such
testimony are required on the dates set forth above; absent extraordinary
circumstances, parties will not be permitted to supplement expert reports
after these dates.

4

Id. at 3. The Case Management Order also stated that “The Deadlines Are Real,” and

5

advised the parties “that the Court intends to enforce the deadlines.” Id. at 5.

1
2

6

Plaintiff did not make expert disclosures on January 12, 2018, but instead sought

7

an extension to February 7, 2018. Doc. 26. The Court granted the extension and set the

8

deadline for Plaintiff’s expert disclosures on February 7, 2018, and for defense expert

9

disclosures on April 25, 2018. Doc. 28. The Court specifically stated that it was “not

10

inclined to grant further extensions to the deadlines contained in the Case Management

11

Order absent truly extraordinary circumstances.” Id.

12

Rather than file expert reports on February 7, 2018, Plaintiff sought a two-month

13

extension to April 7, 2018. Doc. 30. Plaintiff’s motion stated that “destructive testing”

14

of the ladder in question may be necessary.

15

Plaintiff’s counsel had been advised of the need for destructive testing on January 26,

16

2018. Id. at 5. The motion attached an expert affidavit stating that destructive testing

17

likely was necessary. Doc. 30-1 at 5.

Id. at 2.

The motion explained that

18

Defendants never responded to the motion, and never sought an extension of their

19

expert disclosure deadline of April 25, 2018. The Court granted the extension, and

20

Plaintiff served his expert report on April 6, 2018. See Doc. 55-1.

21

Defendants did not comply with their April 25, 2018 expert disclosure deadline,

22

and never sought an extension. Indeed, when the parties exchanged motion for summary

23

judgment letters in June 2018 – after the close of all discovery in this case – Defendants

24

still had not produced an expert report. During a telephone conference with the Court on

25

July 11, 2018, the parties advised the Court that Defendants’ expert report was served on

26

July 3, 2018, more than two months after the Court’s deadline. Doc. 49.

27

Rather than imposing sanctions at that time, the Court set a schedule to get this

28

case through summary judgment. The Court ordered that Plaintiff serve a rebuttal expert

-2-

1

report by July 27, 2018, and set a deadline for Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

2

of August 10, 2018. Id.

3

The parties disregarded these dates. Plaintiff’s expert disclosure was not made

4

until August 20, 2018. Doc. 55 at 3. No extension for of the report deadline was sought

5

from the Court, and the report stated that it was “preliminary,” despite the Case

6

Management Order’s specific requirement that expert disclosures be full and complete.

7

Doc. 19 at 3.

8

Defendants disregarded the August 10, 2018 deadline for their summary judgment

9

motion, filing it more than a month late on September 14, 2018. Doc. 52. No extension

10

was sought.
During a conference call today, Plaintiff sought additional time for his expert to

11
12

conduct destructive testing on the ladder in question.

Plaintiff complained about

13

Defendants’ refusal to cooperate in ladder testing during the past month or two, despite

14

the fact that discovery has been closed for months.

15

To summarize, Defendants ignored the Court’s April 25, 2018 expert disclosure

16

deadline and the Court’s August 10, 2018 summary judgment deadline. Plaintiff ignored

17

the Court’s June 27, 2018 deadline for rebuttal expert disclosures, and disregarded the

18

Court’s admonition that full and complete disclosures are required.

19

disclosed a second ladder expert, even though the Case Management Order states that

20

“[e]ach side shall be limited to one retained or specifically employed expert witness per

21

issue.” Doc. 19 at 3. The parties have blatantly disregarded repeated orders.

22

B.

Plaintiff also

Analysis.

23

Deadlines established in a case management order may “be modified only for

24

good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see Johnson v.

25

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 602, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). “Good cause” exists

26

when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

27

extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, Advisory Comm. Notes (1983). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good

28

cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”

-3-

1

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294

2

(9th Cir. 2000). Where that party has not been diligent, good cause has not been shown

3

and the inquiry ends. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.

4

2002); Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

5

Plaintiff’s request for additional time to allow destructive testing by his expert will

6

be denied. Plaintiff raised the prospect of destructive testing in early February, noting

7

that his expert had advised him of this need on January 26, 2018. See Doc. 30 at 5. In

8

response, the Court granted Plaintiff a second extension of his expert disclosure deadline,

9

affording him two additional months to complete his expert report. Any needed testing

10

could have been performed within this period through reasonable diligence. Plaintiff has

11

not shown good cause to extend the deadlines for completion of expert disclosures and

12

discovery in this case. The Court will not allow destructive testing. Nor will the Court

13

allow Plaintiff to use a second expert on the ladder’s defects. See Doc. 19 at 3.1

14

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is untimely. Defendants produced a

15

letter on June 5, 2018, outlining the arguments that would be made in the summary

16

judgment motion. See Doc. 44. The parties discussed the summary judgment motion

17

during a conference call with the Court on July 11, 2018. Doc. 49. The Court extended

18

the deadline for the summary judgment motion until August 10, 2018. Id. Defendants

19

failed to comply with this deadline.

20

reasonable diligence, and the Court will not extend it further. Defendants’ untimely

21

motion for summary judgment will be denied.

The deadline could have been met through

22

During a conference call today, the Court advised the parties of these rulings and

23

set a trial date of February 5, 2019. The Court will afford each side 8 hours of trial time,

24

not counting jury selection. A final pretrial conference will be held on January 25, 2019,

25

at 3:00 p.m. A separate order will be issued regarding the requirements for the final

26
27
28

1

During today’s conference call with the parties, defense counsel stated on the
record that Defendants will not argue at trial that Plaintiff’s expert should have engaged
in destructive testing of the ladder. The Court will hold Defendants to this position,
which also obviates the need for Plaintiff to conduct destructive testing.
-4-

1

pretrial conference. The parties will be limited at trial to the expert reports disclosed on

2

April 25, 2018, and July 3, 2018. Discovery is closed. No further discovery will be

3

permitted.

4

IT IS ORDERED:

5

1.

6

untimely.

7

2.

A final pretrial conference is set for January 25, 2019, at 3:00 p.m.

8

3.

Trial in this matter shall commence on February 5, 2019.

9

4.

The Court will enter a separate order regarding the final pretrial conference.

10

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 52) is denied as

Dated this 6th day of November, 2018.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-