Pike v. Trinity Industries, Inc. et al

Filing 124

ORDER Granting (Doc. 115) MOTION to Overrule Defendant's Objections to Expert Discovery Depositions filed by Charles W. Pike, and Granting (Doc. 114) MOTION to Compel Response to Request to Produce filed by Charles W. Pike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 8/20/2013. (JWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
CHARLES W. PIKE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:12-cv-146-Oc-UATCPRL

TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC. and
TRINITY HIGHWAY PRODUCTS,
LLC
Defendants.

ORDER
This case is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Overrule
Defendant’s Objections to Expert Discovery Requests dated July 11, 2013 (Doc. 114) and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Overrule Defendant’s Objections to Expert Discovery Depositions of
Defense Witnesses (Doc. 115).
Plaintiff first moves the Court for an order compelling Defendant Trinity Highway
Products to respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production dated July 11, 2013.

Plaintiff’s

discovery request pertains to documents referenced in Defendant’s expert disclosures, filed on
July 1, 2013. Plaintiff seeks to obtain copies of various documents referenced in Defense expert
reports, identified as Request No. 1 (a) – (g) in Plaintiff’s Request for Production (Ex. 1 to Doc.
114). The documents at issue were referenced in the reports of Defense experts Ray, Melcher,
and Welch. (Doc. 114 at 2). Plaintiff argues that he was diligent in requesting the documents, as
the requests were made within 10 days of receiving Defendant’s discovery disclosure.
Consequently, Plaintiff moves the Court for an order compelling the documents despite the fact

that the requests were not served until July 11, 2013, rendering them due past the discovery
deadline of July 25, 2013.
In response, Defendant (Doc. 120) cites Plaintiff’s prior requests to extend discovery
deadlines in this case (Docs. 82 and 99), and contends that Plaintiff is not entitled to the
documents because they should have been served in strict compliance with the Case
Management Order.
Plaintiff also moves (Doc. 115) for an order compelling Defendant to produce for
deposition experts Dennis Payne and Jane Welch, Ph.D. On July 1, 2013, Defendant filed its
expert reports and identified Mr. Payne and Dr. Welch as two of eight retained Defense experts.
Plaintiff states that the only defense experts he seeks to depose are Mr. Payne and Dr. Welch.
On July 9, 2013, Plaintiff sought deposition dates for both experts. Defendant responded by
providing dates that were in August and after the discovery deadline. Plaintiff accommodated
the Defendant’s provided dates and noticed the depositions for August 15 and August 21, 2013,
respectively. On July 25, 2013, however, Defendant objected to the taking of the depositions as
beyond the July 25, 2013 discovery deadline.
In response to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendant contends that Plaintiff should be bound by
the discovery deadline, stating that Plaintiff waited until two weeks prior to the close of
discovery to request dates for Defendant’s expert deadlines. Defendant contends there were no
mutually convenient dates available at that time. (Doc. 121).
Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ordered that:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Overrule Defendant’s Objections to Expert Discovery Requests
(Doc. 114) is GRANTED. Defendant shall produce the documents identified as

-2-

Request No. 1 (a) – (g in Plaintif Request for Product
N
g)
ff’s
tion (Ex. 1 to Doc. 114) on or
o
before Au
ugust 29, 201 and
13;
2)
s
t
e
nts’ Object
tions to Ex
xpert Disco
overy
(2 Plaintiff’s Motion to Overrule Defendan
Depositio of Defe
ons
ense Experts (Doc. 115 is GRAN
s
5)
NTED.

T Defenda is
The
ant

directed to produce ex
xperts Denn Payne and Jane Welc Ph.D. for deposition on or
nis
d
ch,
r
before Se
eptember 30, 2013. The deposition of Dr. Welc previous set for Au
,
e
ch,
sly
ugust
21, 2013, may be rescheduled provided tha it is comp
,
p
at
pleted by th Septembe 30,
he
er
2013 dead
dline.

a
RED in Ocala Florida on August 19, 2013.
a,
n
,
DONE and ORDER

urnished to:
Copies fu
Counsel of Record
sented Partie
es
Unrepres

-3-