Cessna Finance Corporation v. JS CJ3, LLC et al

Filing 130

ORDER granting in part 128 Unopposed Motion to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadline. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 2/14/20. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CESSNA FINANCE CORP.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JETSUITE, INC. and JS CJ3 LLC, )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
JETSUITE, INC. and JS CJ3 LLC, )
)
Counterclaim Plaintiffs, )
)
v.
)
)
CESSNA FINANCE CORP., et al., )
)
Counterclaim Defendants, )
______________________________ )

Case No.: 18-1095-EFM-KGG

ORDER ON MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES
The above-captioned case relates to failure to pay for certain aircraft and the
subsequent abandoning thereof. (Doc. 1, at 6.) A companion case (hereinafter
“the Textron case”) relating to the failure to pay on maintenance agreements on
these aircraft is also pending before the District Court. (See No. 18-1187, Doc. 1,
at 2-3.)

1 

On February 13, 2020, the Court held an in-person hearing relating to three
overlapping discovery motions pending in these two cases. (See Doc. 117.) The
Court ruled on some issues at the hearing. The Court’s remaining rulings on those
motions will be addressed by separate Order.1 The Court also dealt with motions
to extend the expert disclosure deadlines in both cases (Doc. 128; No. 18-1187,
Doc. 140). The motion to extend pending in this case is the subject of the present
Order.
Defendants request that “proponent expert disclosures for experts who may
rely on documents that are the subject of [Defendant’s] pending motions to compel
be due 90 days after the production of all documents compelled in connection with
those motions.” (Doc. 128, at 1.) Plaintiff Cessna Finance is the only party
opposing this motion. (Doc. 129.) Plaintiff indicates that
[b]efore the Motion was filed, counsel for CFC advised
JetSuite’s counsel that CFC did not object in principle to
a 60-day extension of time for JetSuite’s liability experts,
who it claims may need to rely upon documents that are
the subject of the pending Motions to Compel. CFC,
however, wanted a date specific, not a date tied to a
production that has not been ordered.
(Id., at 1.) Plaintiff continued that “[r]egardless of the date/time period, however,
CFC should have an equal amount of time after JetSuite produces its reports,

1

At the hearing, the Court also addressed an additional Motion to Compel in the Textron
case, which is the subject of a separate Order in that case.
2 

which is something the parties discussed and CFC believes JetSuite agreed to in
the exchange.” (Id., at 1-2.)
At the hearing, the Court GRANTED in part the motion to extend. The
expert deadlines in both cases were suspended. The Court informed the parties
that this may result in the remaining deadlines in the case being extended at a later
time. The Court set an in-person status conference for both cases to occur on
March 24, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. The parties were instructed to provide the Court with
a joint memo outlining what should be addressed at the status conference no later
than March 17, 2020. The expert deadlines and all subsequent deadlines will be
re-set at that time.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to
Extend Expert Disclosure Deadlines (Doc. 128) is GRANTED in part as more
fully set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 14th day of February, 2020, at Wichita, Kansas.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

HON. KENNETH G. GALE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3