Santoro v. Autozoners, LLC et al

Filing 10

ORDER. Defendant's Motion (Doc. 8) is GRANTED in part, and Defendant shall have until May 25, 2014 within which to make expert disclosures, however, those disclosures shall be limited to the issue of handwriting expert testimony. Plaintiff sha ll then have until June 25, 2014 within which to designate a rebuttal expert, however, any rebuttal expert shall be subject to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D), and must be intended solely to contradict or rebut Defendant's disclosure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 4/10/2014. (JWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
THOMAS SANTORO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:13-cv-242-Oc-10PRL

AUTOZONERS, LLC and AUTOZONE
STORES, INC.
Defendants.

ORDER
This employment discrimination case comes before the Court for consideration of
Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Expert Designation and Expert Report Deadlines (Doc. 8),
to which Plaintiff has responded in opposition. (Doc. 9).
Defendant requests an extension of sixty (60) days to make its expert disclosures.
Defendant’s motion recites that, pursuant to the Case Management Report (Doc. 6), Plaintiff’s
deadline for making expert disclosures was February 3, 2014. Plaintiff, however, did not make
any expert disclosure. Defendant’s deadline for disclosures was thirty (30) days after Plaintiff’s
disclosures. (Doc. 6). The current discovery deadline is July 5, 2014, and trial is scheduled for
the term commencing November 10, 2014.
Defendant requests an extension for its expert disclosures because, as Defendant asserts,
discovery has revealed the necessity for a handwriting expert. On March 19, 2014, Defendant
took the deposition of the Plaintiff, and issues arose with regard to the authenticity of disciplinary
documents, and with regard to whether Plaintiff actually signed documents that purport to contain
his signature. Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s request, arguing that Defendant should have

forseen the need for an expert, and knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk that information
would be disclosed during Plaintiff’s deposition that would give rise to the need to designate an
expert. Plaintiff also requests permission to designate a rebuttal expert if Defendant’s motion is
granted.
Indeed, there is ample time in the discovery schedule to accommodate Defendant’s request
for designation of a handwriting expert. Accordingly, upon due consideration, Defendant’s
Motion (Doc. 9) is GRANTED in part, and Defendant shall have until May 25, 2014 within which
to make expert disclosures, however, those disclosures shall be limited to the issue of handwriting
expert testimony. Plaintiff shall then have until June 25, 2014 within which to designate a
rebuttal expert, however, any rebuttal expert shall be subject to the provisions of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D), and must be intended solely to contradict or rebut Defendant’s
disclosure.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on April 9, 2014.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-2-