Hope et al v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 50

ORDER granting 46 Motion for Clarification of Scheduling Order. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KYRA HOPE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIV. NO. 14-11497
HON. TERRENCE G. BERG

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
CLAIRIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER (DKT. 46)
This is a product liability action, arising from a residential fire on May 14,
2011 in Detroit, Michigan (Dkt. 29 ¶ 8). Plaintiffs allege in their Second Amended
Complaint that the fire originated within a HP Pavilion Notebook computer (Id. at
¶¶ 8,9). Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) denies that their computer or
any of its component parts caused the fire. HP contends that the fire was caused by
failure and arcing of crimps in an extension cord manufactured, sold, and/or
distributed by KAB Enterprise Co LTD (“KAB”). KAB is not a party to this action,
but has been named by HP as a non-party at fault subject to allocation of fault
under Michigan’s “fair share liability” statutes and rules (HP’s Amended Notice of
Non-Party at Fault, Docket Dkt. 28 at ¶ 1).
HP further contends that the only way the phenomenon alleged by Plaintiffs
– involving “violent internal chemical reactions within the batteries” – could have
occurred was if: (a) the computer was exposed to an external heat source (i.e. a fire

originating outside of the computer); or (b) the battery cells which were
manufactured by Defendant Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. (“SDI”) failed. On this premise,
HP named SDI as a non-party at fault (Dkt. 28 at ¶ 2). After HP identified SDI as a
non-party at fault, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to name SDI as a codefendant (Dkt 11).
SDI recently filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 39) and a motion for
Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiffs (Dkt. 43). Plaintiffs responded to the motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. 42), arguing, essentially, that they cannot properly
response to SDI’s motion until after expert reports are exchanged.
The parties filed a joint discovery plan on May 22, 2015 (Dkt. 36), in which
they agreed to the following dates for expert disclosures – Plaintiffs’ expert
disclosures by August 28, 2015; Defendants’ expert disclosures by November 16,
2015. On May 27, 2015, the Court issued a scheduling order with the following
dates – “expert disclosures” by August 28, 2015; “rebuttal expert disclosures” by
November 16, 2015. Confusion has arisen between the parties concerning the
meaning of the Court’s scheduling order. Plaintiffs contend that HP should be
required to disclose its expert report on August 28, 2015, at least with respect to
HP’s theory of liability concerning the SDI battery. HP contends that it cannot
prepare its expert report, until Plaintiffs first disclose their overall theory of
liability, through Plaintiffs’ expert reports.

2

As a result of this dispute, HP filed a motion for clarification of the
scheduling order (Dkt. 46). The Court held a telephonic conference on August 21,
2015. During this conference, the Court directed the parties to confer, and present
the Court with a stipulated order setting the schedule in this case on or before
August 28, 2015. The parties are still free to do so, and if they do, such a stipulated
schedule – if reasonable – will be adopted by the Court. However, in the absence of
any such stipulation, HP’s motion to clarify the schedule order will be GRANTED.
If the parties fail to present their own agreed-upon dates, the scheduling order will
be modified as follows:


Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures – August 28, 2015



Defendants’ expert disclosures – November 16, 2015



Rebuttal expert disclosures – December 11, 2015

During the telephonic conference, the issue of SDI’s pending motions for summary
judgment and for sanctions was raised. It is clear that discovery, and in particular
expert discovery, will bear on the question of whether summary judgment is
appropriate. Consequently, should Plaintiffs wish to file amended responses to
SDI’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 39) and motion for sanctions (Dkt. 43),
Plaintiffs must do so on or before December 18, 2015.
SO ORDERED.
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 21, 2015
3

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on August 21,
2015, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager

4