Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Astellas US, LLC et al

Filing 128

ORDER: Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Extension of Time for Service of One Rebuttal Report 124 is GRANTED. Plaintiff has until and including August 24, 2012, to disclose its rebuttal expert's report. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/14/2012. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
LAKELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.

8:10-cv-2008-T-33TGW

ASTELLAS US, LLC and ASTELLAS
PHARMA US, INC.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff’s
Emergency Motion for Extension of Time for Service of One
Rebuttal Report (Doc. # 124), which was filed on August 10,
2012. Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion
(Doc. # 127) on August 13, 2012.

The Court grants the Motion

as follows.
Analysis
Plaintiff initiated this putative class action antitrust
case against Defendants on September 13, 2010. (Doc. # 1).
The Court entered its Case Management and Scheduling Order
(Doc. # 58) on March 14, 2011.

Therein, the Court set the

discovery deadline as September 13, 2012, set the deadline to
disclose experts as July 14, 2012, and set the deadline to
disclose rebuttal experts as August 13, 2012. Id.

The

pretrial conference is set for March 21, 2013, and the case is
on the Court’s April 2013, trial term.

Plaintiff has filed a

Motion for Class Certification, which is not yet ripe for the
Court’s review.

(Doc. # 116).

At this juncture, Plaintiff indicates that it timely
disclosed all of its rebuttal experts except for its expert on
regulatory matters.

As for this unnamed expert, Plaintiff

explains:
Our expert on regulatory matters is unable to have
his report ready by [August 13, 2012]. . . .
Undersigned counsel originally retained a different
expert on this subject, who believed he could
comply with the deadline.
This original expert
then had second thoughts . . . [and] withdrew. By
the time it was clear that the original expert
would not reconsider there was only one week in
which to identify and retain a substitute. We have
now done so, but the new expert . . . requires a
two-week extension of time in which to complete his
analysis of the issues and compile and finalize his
report.
(Doc. # 124 at 3).
Plaintiff

indicates

that

Defendants

will

suffer

no

prejudice if the extension is granted because Defendants can
depose this unnamed expert after the discovery cut off period,
if necessary. In the Motion, Plaintiff also mentions that the
parties are “currently engaged in discussions for scheduling
over thirty different individuals [for deposition] in at least
-2-

five different cities, between now and September 14, 2012.”
(Doc. # 124 at 4).
In response, Defendants explain that “the parties are
struggling to complete fact discovery by the Court’s September
[14], 2012, deadline. [Plaintiff] has not yet provided any
deposition dates for its rebuttal experts, except for Dr.
McGuire; nor has it provided dates for several of its fact
witnesses that [Defendants] asked to depose.”

(Doc. # 127 at

3).
The Court determines that it is appropriate to grant a
limited extension, until and including August 24, 2012, for
Plaintiff to disclose its rebuttal expert’s report. The Court
acknowledges

that

the

parties

are

currently

engaged

in

herculean efforts to complete their depositions prior to the
close of discovery on September 14, 2012.

With thirty

depositions to be taken in a one month period, the Court does
not think that granting a limited extension as to one rebuttal
expert will cause any substantial prejudice.

Any minimal

prejudice stemming from the limited extension granted herein
is

outweighed

by

the

great

prejudice

that

would

befall

Plaintiff if the Court were to deny the extension sought,

-3-

leaving Plaintiff without the benefit of its chosen rebuttal
expert.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Extension of Time for
Service of One Rebuttal Report (Doc. # 124) is GRANTED.

(2)

Plaintiff has until and including August 24, 2012, to
disclose its rebuttal expert’s report.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 14th

day of August 2012.

Copies: All Counsel of Record

-4-