Smith v. Eary
AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER and ORDER granting 34 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Discovery deadline 2/20/2018. Mediation deadline 1/30/2018. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 2/27/2018. Jury Trial set for 6/12/2018 at 09:00 AM in KC Cour troom 427 (JAR) before Chief District Judge Julie A Robinson. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/6/2018 at 11:00 AM in KC Courtroom 223 (JPO) before Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 9/1/2017. (srj)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case No. 17-2127-JAR
NICHOLAS R. EARY,
AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
Defendant has filed a motion (ECF No. 34) to amend the scheduling order (ECF
No. 20). For good cause shown, the motion is granted.
This is a personal-injury action arising from a motor-vehicle accident. On or
about July 14, 2017, plaintiff underwent spine surgery allegedly resulting from the
Claiming the results of plaintiff’s surgery will not be fully known until
approximately five to six months post-surgery, defendant seeks extensions of the
deadlines for the parties to complete physical and mental examinations, and for defendant
to serve his expert disclosures.1 Defendant argues plaintiff’s post-surgery condition is
relevant to plaintiff’s claim for lost future wages, lost future household services, and
future medical expenses. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing defendant has known the
surgery was necessary since before the suit was filed, and that plaintiff is capable of
To the extent remaining deadlines will be impacted by these extensions,
defendant seeks an order extending all remaining deadlines and continuing the trial
undergoing an IME in time for defendant to meet present deadlines. Plaintiff also claims
she will be prejudiced by any delay, citing financial hardship resulting from the accident.
Motions to modify scheduling orders are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4),
which provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the
judge’s consent.” This good-cause standard does not focus on the “bad faith” of the
movant, nor the “lack of prejudice” to the opposing party.2 “Rather, it focuses on the
diligence of the party seeking to modify the scheduling order.”3 Ultimately, whether to
modify the scheduling order lies within the court’s sound discretion.4
Given the nature of plaintiff’s claims and damages, and the relatively limited
extension sought, the court finds good cause to modify the scheduling order.
Accordingly, with the consent of the presiding U.S. District Judge, Julie A. Robinson, the
scheduling order is amended as follows:
SUMMARY OF DEADLINES AND SETTINGS
January 30, 2018
40 days before the
deadline for completion of
Supplementation of initial disclosures
All discovery completed
February 20, 2018
Manuel v. Wichita Hotel Partners, LLC, No. 09-1244, 2010 WL 3861278, at *2
(D. Kan. Sept. 20, 2010).
Id. (quoting Grieg v. Botros, No. 08-1181, 2010 WL 3270102, at *3 (D. Kan.
Aug. 12, 2010)).
Paris v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 94 App’x 810, 816 (10th Cir. 2004).
Experts disclosed by defendant
January 30, 2018
Rebuttal experts disclosed
February 9, 2018
Physical and mental examinations
January 19, 2018
Motions challenging admissibility of expert testimony
45 days before trial
Proposed pretrial order due
February 27, 2018
March 6, 2018, at 11:00
June 12, 2018, at 9:00
All other provisions of the original scheduling order shall remain in effect. The
schedule adopted in this amended scheduling order shall not be modified except by leave
of court upon a showing of good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated September 1, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U.S. Magistrate Judge
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?