Noelker v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University

Filing 100

ORDER Denying 93 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Designation of Mariea Snell filed by Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, Defendant's motion to strike is DENIED. The parties should carefully review this Order for amended scheduling deadlines. Discovery due by 2/7/2020. Dispositive Motions due by 2/28/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 11/21/2019. (kll)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JENNIFER NOELKER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:17-cv-800-GCS

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Jennifer Noelker filed suit in July 2017 alleging that employees of
Defendant Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University (“SIU”) engaged in a practice
of discrimination against her on the basis of her age during all of her interactions with
the SIU School of Nursing’s Nurse Anesthetist Program. On December 14, 2017,
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams entered a scheduling order setting a discovery
deadline of August 8, 2018. (Docs., 18, 20). The scheduling order included deadlines for
expert discovery. Plaintiff’s experts were to be disclosed on or before April 1, 2018, and
they were to be deposed on May 15, 2018. (Doc. 20-1).
Since the entry of the scheduling order, the discovery deadline and/or the
dispositive motion deadline has been extended at least five times, and the discovery
deadline currently is set for December 9, 2019. (See Doc. 42, 57, 70, 85, 89). Dispositive
motions are due January 6, 2020, and trial is set to commence on June 16, 2020. Before the

Page 1 of 4

Court is a motion by Defendant seeking to strike Plaintiff’s designation of Dr. Mariea
Snell as an expert witness as untimely, as Dr. Snell was not mentioned or disclosed before
October 2019.
Defendant points out that none of the requests to amend the discovery deadlines
in this action specifically requested an extension of the expert discovery deadlines. In
October 2019, Plaintiff first informed Defendant that she planned to designate Snell as an
expert. Plaintiff indicates that the need for Dr. Snell’s testimony did not arise until she
had the chance to depose certain witnesses and review documents disclosed in discovery,
events that had not occurred before April 2018. Plaintiff also explains that Dr. Snell’s
report will be provided after the deposition transcripts of two other witnesses, scheduled
for November 2019, are available. Plaintiff also intended to seek an extension of time to
submit the expert report after the Court addressed the motion to compel, but she did not
so move before Defendant filed its motion to strike.
While it is true that the parties never requested an extension of the expert
discovery schedule in their requests to amend the original scheduling order, it is
unreasonable to assume that the original April 2018 deadline stands firm and that
Plaintiff cannot disclose an expert more than six months before trial. Even the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure are not so strict, as, in the absence of a court order to the contrary,
expert disclosures need not be made until 90 days before trial. FED. R. CIV. P.
26(a)(2)(D)(i). In a perfect world, either the parties would have contemplated specifically
extending expert discovery in one of their several motions to amend the scheduling order
or Plaintiff would have sought leave to disclose Dr. Snell in October, recognizing the lack

Page 2 of 4

of clarity in the orders extending discovery. Neither happened. But given that trial is over
six months away, that discovery has not closed, and that no dispositive motions are on
file, it cannot be said that the disclosure of Dr. Snell at this juncture will unfairly prejudice
Defendant.
Rather than striking the disclosure and directing Plaintiff to seek leave, which the
undersigned would grant, the Court sua sponte amends the discovery order in this action.
Plaintiff’s expert disclosures shall be made on or before December 9, 2019, and Plaintiff’s
expert shall be deposed on or before January 13, 2020. Defendant may disclose expert
witnesses, as well, and must do so on or before December 30, 2019. Defendant’s experts,
if any, shall be deposed on or before February 3, 2020. The discovery deadline is extended
through February 7, 2020. Dispositive motions shall be filed by February 28, 2020. The
parties may amend or modify the expert discovery schedule by agreement, but the Court
will not extend the discovery cut-off or the dispositive motion deadline again, absent
extraordinary circumstances.
As a final note, it is clear that there is discord among the parties and that discovery
matters grow increasingly contentious in this litigation. The parties are strongly
encouraged to work together to resolve discovery issues in a reasonable and fair manner
whenever possible. When intervention from the Court is sought, however, it is the
undersigned’s strong preference that the parties adhere to arguing the law and keep their
expressions of their feelings about the other side’s actions to a minimum, as the Court
cannot and does not decide matters based on the feelings of one side or the other. It is
distracting, at best, and does not help the Court sort through these important matters.

Page 3 of 4

For all these reasons, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s expert disclosure of
Mariea Snell (Doc. 93) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by Magistrate
Judge Gilbert C. Sison
Date: 2019.11.21 12:57:38 -06'00'

Dated: November 21, 2019.

______________________________
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4