Finnegan et al v. Myers et al
Filing
163
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and overruling in part 159 Order. Plaintiffs' objection to the Magistrate Judge's order precluding expert reports is granted, and this matter is referred bck to Judge Nuechterlein to set a new deadline for expert reports. The objection to the Magistrate Judge limiting the Plaintiffs to three final depositions is OVERRULED and this ruling stands. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 8/5/13. (smp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ROMAN FINNEGAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LAUREL MYERS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 3:08-CV-503
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Objection to Magistrate
Judge’s Order Precluding Expert Reports and Limiting Discovery,
filed by Plaintiffs on July 24, 2013 (DE #161).
For the reasons
set forth below, the objection is GRANTED IN PART and OVERRULED IN
PART.
Plaintiffs’ objection to the Magistrate Judge’s order
precluding expert reports is GRANTED, and this matter is referred
back to Judge Nuechterlein to set a new deadline for expert
reports.
The objection to the Magistrate Judge limiting the
Plaintiffs to three final depositions is OVERRULED and this ruling
stands.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed the instant Petition for Review pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),
objecting to the July 3, 2013 order (“Order”) entered by United
States Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein (DE #159). The
Magistrate’s order declined to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs
to serve expert reports (which was February 1, 2010), and limited
Plaintiffs to 3 more depositions within the discovery period, to be
completed by September 2, 2013.
(DE #159.)
In their objection, Plaintiffs ask that Magistrate Judge
Nuechterlein’s order be reversed, allowing them an extension to
file expert reports and to conduct additional depositions.
DISCUSSION
A district court's review of any discovery-related decisions
made by a magistrate judge is governed by Rule 72(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 72(a) provides that, "[t]he
district judge in the case must consider timely objections and
modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous
or is contrary to law."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The clear error standard means the district court can
overturn the magistrate judge's ruling only if the district court
is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been made.
Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926,
943 (7th Cir. 1997).
With that admonishment in mind, this Court
will review Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein's rulings.
First,
Judge
Nuechterlein’s
ruling
regarding
the
expert
reports seems tied to Defendants’ counsel representing to the Court
2
that Plaintiffs made no disclosures under Rule 26.
6-8.)
(DE #161, pp.
To the contrary, Plaintiffs now have shown proof that they
provided their initial Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures on June 1, 2009,
which contained specific details about each medical witness and
curriculum vitas.
(Id., pp. 8-13.)
Additionally, they indicated
their medical witnesses in response to interrogatories.
14.)
(Id., p.
Thus, Judge Nuechterlein’s ruling is clearly erroneous
because it was based upon incorrect information provided to him
about the Rule 26 disclosures. Although Plaintiffs did indeed fail
to provide expert reports by the initial deadline (way back in
2010), the discovery and indeed this entire case has revolved
around the medical witnesses, and this Court believes it would be
overly prejudicial and unfair to all parties involved to exclude
these expert opinions at the summary judgment stage and/or trial.
As to limiting the Plaintiffs to three additional depositions,
this Court cannot say that the Magistrate Judge made a clearly
erroneous decision.
Rather, he is in the best position to judge
how many additional depositions are fair, especially considering
the protracted discovery in this litigation.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the objection is GRANTED IN
PART
and
OVERRULED
IN
PART.
Plaintiffs’
objection
to
the
Magistrate Judge’s order precluding expert reports is GRANTED, and
3
this matter is referred back to Judge Nuechterlein to set a new
deadline for expert reports. The objection to the Magistrate Judge
limiting the Plaintiffs to three final depositions is OVERRULED and
this ruling stands.
DATED: August 5, 2013
/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?