Urga v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al

Filing 21

RULING/Amended Scheduling Order granting 20 Motion for Reconsideration of 18 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Pretrial Deadlines filed June 13, 2011. All fact discovery and motions to compel discovery shall be filed by 8/15/2011. Expert Witness list due 9/15/2011 for the pltf and by 10/14/2011 for the dft. Expert Reports due by 9/30/2011 for the pltf and by 10/31/2011 for the dft. Experts shall be deposed by 12/15/2011. Dispositive motions due by 12/30/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 6/14/2011. (CMM) Modified on 6/14/2011 to edit text. (CMM).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LANCE W. URGA
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 10-218-BAJ-SCR
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
ET AL
RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
and
AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
Before

the

court

is

the

Joint

Unopposed

Motion

for

Reconsideration of Unopposed Motion for Extension of Pretrial
Deadlines filed June 13, 2011. Record document number 20. Because
the motion was filed within 28 days of the ruling as to which
reconsideration is sought, it will be treated as a Rule 59,
Fed.R.Civ.P., motion for a new trial.1
The

Scheduling

Order

clearly

advised

the

parties

that

“[j]oint, agreed or unopposed motions to extend scheduling order
deadlines will not be granted automatically. All motions to extend
scheduling order deadlines must be supported by facts sufficient to
find good cause as required by Rule 16, Fed.R.Civ.P.”

All of the

information presented in this motion should have been included in
the earlier motion.
1

Under Rule 59 the court has considerable

Lavespere v. Niagra Machine Tool Works, 910 F.3d 167 (5th
Cir. 1990), rev’d on other grounds, 920 F.2d 259 (5th Cir. 1990),
cert. denied, 510 U.S. 859, 114 S.Ct. 171 (1993). The Ruling on
Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines was issued June 8,
2011. Record document number 19.

discretion to grant a new trial, i.e. in this case, reconsideration
of the prior ruling.2

Since this motion was promptly filed after

the ruling, is a joint motion, contains sufficient information to
support granting relief, and the only negative consequence is some
additional delay before the case is assigned for the final pretrial
conference,

in

the

exercise

of

the

court’s

discretion

reconsideration is granted.
However, these new deadlines will not be extended again based
on the inability to locate and depose Dawn Lovelace.

The parties

have not shown that any party made a diligent effort to locate and
depose her until five months after the fact discovery completion
deadline had already expired.

Nor will the expert discovery

deadlines be extended again based on the need to take discovery
depositions of the plaintiff’s treating physicians.3

Since they

were not required to provide reports pursuant to former Rule
26(a)(2)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., Rule 26(d)(1) allowed them to be deposed
at any time after the parties had their Rule 26(f) conference.4
Therefore;
IT IS ORDERED that the scheduling order previously issued is

2

Id. 910 F.3d 167, 173-174.

3

Since these are discovery deadlines, they do not apply to
taking trial deposition.
4

Rule 26 was amended effective December 1, 2010.
amendment did not change the substance of section (a)(2)(B).
2

The

hereby amended as follows.5
A.

All fact discovery shall be completed and motions to
compel discovery filed by August 15, 2011.

B.

(This deadline has expired.)

C.

Plaintiff shall disclose the identity of any person who
may be used at trial to present evidence under Rules 702,
703 or 705, Fed.R.Evid., by September 15, 2011.
Defendants shall disclose such persons by October 14,
2011.

D.

Any person who will offer expert testimony for the
plaintiff who is required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B),
Fed.R.Civ.P., to produce a report shall produce such
report by September 30, 2011. Defendants shall produce
any required expert reports by October 31, 2011.

E.

Expert discovery, including depositions of expert
witnesses, shall be completed by December 15, 2011.

F.

Dispositive motions shall be filed by December 30, 2011.

The time limits set forth in this order shall not be modified
except by leave of court upon a showing of good cause.

Joint,

agreed or unopposed motions to extend scheduling order deadlines
will

not

be

granted

automatically.

All

motions

to

extend

scheduling order deadlines must be supported by facts sufficient to
find good cause as required by Rule 16, Fed.R.Civ.P.

A second and

any subsequent motion to extend the scheduling order deadlines must
be supported with detailed information describing the discovery
already completed, what necessary discovery remains, the parties
efforts to complete the remaining discovery by the deadline, and
5

New dates are in bold type.
3

any additional information showing that the parties have diligently
pursued

their

discovery.

Motions

for

reconsideration

by

the

magistrate judge of rulings granting or denying extensions of
scheduling order deadlines will be considered as motions under
either Rule 59 or Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P., depending on when the
motion for reconsideration is filed. See Lavespere v. Niagra
Machine Tool Works, 910 F.3d 167 (5th Cir. 1990), rev’d on other
grounds, 920 F.2d 259 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 859,
114 S.Ct. 171 (1993).
This case will be reviewed in approximately 90 days and
assigned for a status conference if necessary.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June 14, 2011.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4