Welsh v. Pfizer, Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 30 Joint Motion to Stay Expert Designation Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on October 25, 2011. (Cochran, Ronald)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
ELAINE G. WELSH

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10cv40-TSL-MTP

PFIZER, INC., WYETH, INC., and
JOHN DOES 1-10

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties’ [30] Joint Motion to Stay Expert
Designation Deadlines. For the reasons which follow, the motion will be granted in part and
denied in part.
On June 8, 2011, a case management conference was held with all parties participating.
A [20] Case Management Order was subsequently entered. The order reflected the parties’
positions that no early motions were anticipated which would affect the scope of discovery or
otherwise expedite the resolution of this matter.
Expert deadlines were set in the case management order. The plaintiff’s expert
designation deadline was set for October 1, 2011 and the defendants’ deadline was set for
November 15, 2011. The parties now announce via this motion that they have agreed to
“informally” disregard the deadlines previously set by the Court’s order. They argue that it
would be a waste of resources to designate experts now with a summary judgment motion on the
table. If this action is dismissed, they observe, the parties will not have incurred the costs of
experts.
However, the Court is just as concerned with the possibility that the motion will not be

granted and desires that the case be ready for trial in that event. The pendency of a motion for
summary judgement is not a ground for suspending case deadlines. See, e.g., LeBoeuf v. Planet
Insurance Co., 913 F. Supp. 509, 514 n.3 (S.D. Tex. 1996) (discussing the reality of modern
litigation).1 Were it otherwise, the Court would be faced with staying deadlines after every
dispositive motion with no progress being made toward preparing the case for trial.
As this case was filed nearly twenty months ago, the Court finds that the current trial
schedule should be maintained so that the matter may proceed to a disposition without further
delay. The Court will grant the alternative relief requested, in part, and will extend the plaintiff’s
expert designation deadline to November 26, 2011. The defendant’s expert designation deadline
will be extended to January 15, 2012. Any other relief requested is denied.
SO ORDERED this the 25th day of October, 2011.
s/Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge

1

Our local rules further provide that a general stay of discovery is not granted even for
threshold motions such as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction unless “filed at least seven
days before the Case Management Conference or the movant will be deemed to have waived the
stay provision of subsection (B).” See L. U. Civ. R. 16(b)(3)(A).
2