Lowe et al v. Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford

Filing 19

RULING: The defendant's 15 Motion for Expedited Consideration of Motion to Compel Inspection and Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Exchange Expert Report is granted, and the defendant's 12 Motion to Compel Inspection of Property and its 13 Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Exchange Expert Report are both denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 12/13/2013. (NLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

REGINALD LOWE, ET AL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 13-615-BAJ-SCR
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD
RULINGS ON MOTION TO COMPEL INSPECTION OF PROPERTY,
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, AND
MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
Before the court are the Motion to Compel Inspection of
Property, the Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Exchange
Expert Report, and the Motion for Expedited Consideration of Motion
to Compel Inspection [Rec. Doc. 12] and Ex Parte Motion for
Extension of Time to Exchange Expert Report [Rec. Doc. 13], filed
by defendant Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford
(hereafter, “Hartford”).
respectively.

Record document numbers 12, 13 and 15,

The motions to compel inspection and for extension

time are opposed.1
There being no opposition to the defendant’s motion for
expedited consideration, that motion is granted.

For the reasons

which follow, the defendants other two motions are denied.
According to the motion to compel inspection, on November 18,
2013 counsel for the defendant requested, via an email, that the
defendant’s expert be allowed to inspect the plaintiffs’ property
1

Record document number 16.

before he issued his expert report, which is due by December 16,
2013.

The next day counsel for the plaintiffs asked that the

defendant make a formal Rule 34 request for inspection. Defendant
served a request for inspection on November 19, 2013, proposing an
inspection of the plaintiff’s property on December 5, 2013.

As

provided by Rule 34, Fed.R.Civ.P., the plaintiffs have 30 days to
respond, but the defendant’s proposed inspection date was far less
than that.
before

the

Then the defendant filed this motion on December 10,
plaintiffs’

30-day

response

period

expired.

Consequently, the defendant’s motion is premature and is denied.
Defendant’s motion for extension of time seeks to extend the
deadline for the defendant to produce its expert witness report
until 20 days after its expert inspects the plaintiffs’ property.
Rule 16, Fed.R.Civ.P., requires a showing of good cause to
extend a scheduling order deadline.

This motion does not contain

sufficient information to support finding good cause.
motion

asserts

that

the

“[p]laintiffs

have

ignored

While the
repeated

requests to permit The Hartford’s expert to inspect their property
before submission of its expert report,” the only requests for
inspection described in the motion are (1) the email on November
18, (2) the formal Rule 34 request served the next day, and (3) a
letter dated December 4, 2013 to counsel for the plaintiffs asking
for a response to the Rule 34 request for inspection, alternative
dates for an inspection, and whether the plaintiffs would agree to

2

an extension of the defendant’s expert report deadline.

As to the

first request, it clearly was not ignored - rather, counsel

for

the plaintiffs promptly asked that the defendant make a formal Rule
34 request.

As to the second, formal Rule 34 request, the time for

the plaintiffs to respond has not expired and the plaintiffs are
under no obligation to respond sooner.2

As to the letter, the

plaintiffs were under no obligation to provide alternative dates
for an inspection or agree to an extension of the defendant’s
deadline.
The motion does not explain why the defendant did not seek an
inspection of the property until November 18, 2013 - less than a
month before the defendant was due to produce its expert report.
The case was removed to this court almost six months ago, and the
Scheduling Order was issued three months ago.

Defendant’s expert

report deadline in the Scheduling Order is the one suggested by the
parties in their Status Report.

There is nothing described in any

of the defendant’s motions that justifies waiting until November
18, 2013 to seek an inspection of the plaintiffs’ property.
Insofar as the defendant argued that it need not rely on the
plaintiffs’ exert regarding various aspects of the property, and is
entitled to an inspection by its own expert to verify the accuracy

2

Defendant sought expedited consideration of its two motions,
but did not move to require the plaintiffs to respond to its Rule
34 request for inspection in less than 30 days, as it could have
done under Rule 34(b)(2)(A).
3

of the plaintiffs’ expert’s assertions, both statements are true but neither is good cause to extend the defendant’s expert report
deadline.
Defendant created the problem it now faces: it failed to seek
an inspection of the plaintiffs’ property until November 18, 2013.
Defendant’s lack of diligence in seeking an inspection of the
plaintiff’s property does not justify now extending its expert
report deadline.
Accordingly,

the

defendant’s

Motion

for

Expedited

Consideration of Motion to Compel Inspection [Rec. Doc. 12] and Ex
Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Exchange Expert Report [Rec.
Doc.

13]

is

granted,

and

the

defendant’s

Motion

to

Compel

Inspection of Property and its Ex Parte Motion for Extension of
Time to Exchange Expert Report are both denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 13, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4