Rozbicki v. Max Cycles, LLC

Filing 234

ORDER denying 223 Motion to reopen expert discovery. Please see the attached Ruling & Order for details. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 5/7/18. (Jones, P.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ZBIGNIEW ROZBICKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAX CYCLES CT, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:14-cv-1422 (RNC)

RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiff moves for leave to reopen expert discovery (ECF
No. 223).

The motion is denied for substantially the reasons

stated by the defendants in their response to the motion (ECF No.
226, 227).
I. Background
In 2014, plaintiff brought this products liability action in
state court seeking damages for injuries sustained in a
motorcycle accident that occurred in 2012.

The complaint alleged

that the accident was caused by failure of the motorcycle’s antilock brake system (“ABS”), misrepresentations regarding the
safety of the motorcycle, and inadequate dashboard warnings of
ABS failure.
The action was removed to this court and a motion to remand
was denied.

Pursuant to the Rule 26(f) Report submitted by the

parties, all discovery was to be completed by December 2015.
discovery deadline was later extended until September 2016.
Plaintiff disclosed two experts within the time permitted by
1

The

scheduling orders.

The defendants deposed the plaintiff’s

experts and provided expert discovery in return.
closed on January 31, 2017.

Discovery

See Minute Entry of Nov. 4, 2016

(ECF No. 84).
In December 2016, defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs’
proposed experts and for summary judgment.

Plaintiff opposed the

motions and moved for leave to amend the complaint to substitute
new defendants: Max Stratton and Max Cycles NY.

On April 27,

2017, the motions were argued and taken under advisement.

On

September 29, 2017, the defendants’ motions for summary judgment
were denied and the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend was
granted.

See Order (ECF No. 164).

II. Legal Standard
“Once the deadline for discovery has passed, discovery may
be reopened only for good cause.” Solman v. Corl, No. 3:15-cv1610(JCH), 2016 WL 6433829, at *2 (D. Conn. Oct. 31, 2016)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)). “Good cause may be shown if a
party cannot, despite [his] due diligence, reasonably meet the
schedule.

The requisite good cause is based on factors such as

the diligence vel non of the party requesting an extension, bad
faith vel non of the party opposing such extension, the phase of
the litigation and prior knowledge of and notice to the parties.”
Id. (quoting Gavenda v. Orleans Cty., No. 95CV0251E(SC), 1996 WL
377091, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. June 19, 1996)).

2

III. Discussion
Plaintiff requests an opportunity to disclose an expert who
will state that “the failure of the ABS below 6,000 miles is a
different species of product defect in this case.”
Reopen, at *4 (ECF No. 223).

Pl. Mot. To

Plaintiff states that he “already

has reason to believe that there may be an issue with early ABS
failures prior to this accident.”

Id.

Defendants oppose the

motion to reopen expert discovery on the ground that plaintiff
has failed to show good cause.

I agree that the good cause

standard, which governs this motion, has not been met.
Premature failure of the ABS system was alleged in the
initial complaint and in each amended complaint. See Compl. ¶
17(e) (ECF No. 1-1);

First Amended Compl. ¶ 30(e) (ECF No. 29);

Second Amended Compl. ¶¶ 78(e), 90(b)-(c), 104(a)-(c) (ECF No.
92).

Plaintiff was obliged to disclose an expert on this theory

of product defect within the time permitted for expert discovery
by the scheduling orders.

He has not shown that he was diligent

in attempting to meet the discovery deadline and there is no
reason to think he was prevented from meeting the deadline
despite the exercise of due diligence.

Moreover, the stage of

the case weighs heavily against reopening expert discovery.
case is almost four years old.

The

The discovery deadline,

originally set for December 2015, expired over a year ago in
January 2017.

Motions to preclude plaintiff’s experts and for

3

summary judgment have been adjudicated.

The parties should be

preparing for trial.
Plaintiff argues that counsel for the defendants agreed to
reopen discovery in conjunction with the addition of the new
defendants.

Defense counsel respond that their consent to the

plaintiff’s proposed discovery order was premised on the
understanding that any additional discovery would be directed to
potential liability issues pertaining solely to Max Cycles NY not to product defect theories that have been alleged in the
plaintiff’s pleadings since 2014.

That makes sense to me.

In any event, agreement of counsel does not provide good cause
for reopening discovery.
Though the period for expert discovery will not be reopened
to enable plaintiff to disclose an expert on the premature
failure of the ABS system, plaintiff’s already-disclosed experts
will be permitted to testify in support of the claims against the
new defendants in conformity with their expert reports.
Plaintiff and the new defendants also may conduct written
discovery to be completed before June 30, 2018.
So ordered this 7th day of May 2018.

/S/
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge

4