Crouch et al v. Honeywell International, Inc. et al

Filing 379

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge James D. Moyer on 9/30/2014; Expert Witness (Defendant) due by 1/9/2015. Expert Witness (Plaintiff) due by 10/31/2014. Daubert Motion due by 2/27/2015. Dispositive Motions due by 4/10/2015. 357 Motion to Stay, 364 Motion to Strike, 377 Motion for Hearing 331 Motion to Strike DENIED AS MOOT without prejudice to to re-file similar motions should circustamces warrant. cc: Counsel(TLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE

LARRY CROUCH, ET AL.
v.

PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07CV-638-S

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Currently pending before the court are four motions filed by John Jewell Aircraft. The
first is a motion to strike the reports of four of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses for non-compliance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, Federal Rule of Evidence 702, issue preclusion, and
because they allegedly are “unintelligible” (docket no. 331). The second is a motion to stay John
Jewell Aircraft’s expert disclosure deadline (docket no. 357). The third is another motion to
strike the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert Richard Wartman, primarily because he prepared a
diagram and related calculations in preparation for his deposition and had not included those
materials in his expert report (docket no. 364). The fourth is a motion requesting oral argument of
John Jewell Aircraft’s second motion to strike (docket no. 377).
This case has been pending for over seven years, during which time, part of it was
bifurcated and tried before a jury in Alabama. Throughout the pendency of this case, plaintiffs
have been less than clear about their theories of liability with respect to each defendant. The court
has expressed concern about this. The defendants have expressed frustration. This frustration,
however described in terms of putative non-compliance with applicable rules of civil procedure, is
John Jewell’s core argument in each of its motions now pending.

Had this case been pending only a short amount of time, or had there not been a repeatedly
voiced concern regarding the relative lack of precision of the plaintiffs’ claims against each of the
defendants and the myriad attendant discovery disputes, or were there a trial pending, the
magistrate judge would rule on each motion, allegation by allegation. Upon careful reflection,
however, the magistrate judge concludes that doing so in this matter would miss the proverbial
forest by focusing on the trees.
There is no trial date set in this matter. There is no deadline for filing substantive motions.
There have only been discovery deadlines repeatedly rescheduled. It is time for this case to
coalesce into a forthright statement of allegations and proceed accordingly, so that the matter can
proceed expeditiously to a trial on its merits.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs shall, on or before October 31,
2014, serve reports from each expert witness they have already identified as such. Each report
shall be revised as needed to make sure that it fully complies with the requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26, and plaintiffs are strongly cautioned to err on the side of caution when
evaluating compliance. The opinions shall be expressed clearly and in appropriate detail, with the
expert’s opinion with respect to each defendant identified with particularity.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1. Defendants shall have until January 9, 2015, to re-depose plaintiffs’ experts, if they so
choose, and prepare and serve their expert witness reports, and they too are strongly cautioned to
err on the side of caution when evaluating the reports’ compliance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26.
2. All parties shall have until February 27, 2015, to file and serve any Daubert motions.
3. All parties shall have until April 10, 2015, to file and serve any dispositive motions.

2

4. John Jewell Aircraft’s pending motions (docket nos. 331, 357, 364, 377) are DENIED
AS MOOT, without prejudice to John Jewell Aircraft’s right to re-file similar motions should
circumstances warrant.
DATE:

September 30, 2014

cc: counsel of record

3