Miller et al v. Target

Filing 60

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 59 Motion for Disclosure; granting in part and denying in part 59 Motion for Extension of Time. See attached Order. (MacDonald, Gail) (Main Document 60 replaced on 6/7/2016) (DaSilva, Carolina).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KIMBERLY MILLER and BRIAN MILLER, Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-10721-IT ORDER June 7, 2016 TALWANI, D.J. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Expert Disclosure Deadline and Allow the Deposition of Marissa Dennis Outside of the Discovery Deadline [#59] is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Under the court’s Revised Scheduling Order [#34], depositions of fact witnesses were to be completed no later than April 15, 2016; further cooperative written discovery was permitted, but otherwise, written discovery was closed; Plaintiffs’ trial experts were due to be designated no later than May 16, 2016; and Defendant’s trial experts were due to be designated no later than June 30, 2016. The parties failed to timely request any extension of this schedule, and instead, apparently extended depositions without leave of court. Because the court permitted Defendant to take the deposition of Rebecca Howard, see Order [#58], and allowed the medical examination of Plaintiff to proceed despite the close of fact discovery, see Electronic Order [#57], the court will likewise allow Plaintiff’s motion to permit the deposition of Marissa Dennis to take place today as apparently agreed to by the parties. The court does not anticipate any further reopening of fact discovery. The parties shall jointly propose an amended schedule for expert designations and disclosures that allow for completion of expert discovery by September 1, 2016. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: June 7, 2016 /s/ Indira Talwani United States District Judge 2

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?