Hickey v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 52 MOTION for Extension of: Time filed by Plaintiff Mary P. Hickey, 33 MOTION for Leave to Designate Plaintiff's Expert filed by Plaintiff Mary P. Hickey. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plainti ff's motion for leave to designate plaintiff's expert witness on damages (#33) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for extension of time in which to serve her expert report on damages (#52) is GRANTED. IT IS FINAL LY ORDERED that the parties shall propose a new schedule for the parties' service of expert reports and any other changes to the Case Management Order by July 12, 2017. (Response to Court due by 7/12/2017.) Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 6/29/17. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MARY P. HICKEY,
TELEPHONE CO., et al.,
Case No. 1:16CV184 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for extension of time in which
to serve her expert report on damages (#52) and motion for leave to designate plaintiff’s
expert witness on damages (#33).
Plaintiff served her Rule 26 disclosures in October 2016. But she advised
defendant that she had not yet calculated her damages, but she stated that she would
supplement. Defendant served discovery requests on plaintiff. On February 6, plaintiff
responded to defendant’s interrogatory about damages and stated that she would retain an
expert to opine on damages and would supplement the answer to that interrogatory after
discovery was complete. She also stated she would supplement her response when she
identified her expert. Defendant responded in a letter and advised plaintiff that the
deadline for expert identification was December 30, 2016 and requested a complete
response to the interrogatories.
On March 21, plaintiff supplemented her responses and advised she planned to
employ damages expert Rebecca Summary and provide a calculation of damages after
discovery was complete.
Plaintiff served her own discovery requests on defendant on March 31, 2017. The
discovery deadline was May 9; defendant asked for and plaintiff agreed to an extension
for defendant’s response. Plaintiff filed her motion for leave to designate her expert out
of time on May 24, 2017, before defendant had responded to her discovery requests.
Defendant served its responses and over 5,000 pages of documents on plaintiff on June
Plaintiff says she needs more time to submit her expert report and contends there
will be no prejudice to defendant. Defendant says it is prejudiced because it has already
taken plaintiff’s deposition; further, defendant says that if plaintiff’s motion is granted,
discovery would have to be reopened and deadlines and the trial date extended.
The Court will grant plaintiff’s motion. Although both parties may require
additional time to complete discovery, the volume of documents served on plaintiff
would likely have required plaintiff to seek extensions of the discovery deadline even if
plaintiff had made her requests months earlier. The Court will freely give reasonable
extensions to remaining deadlines and advises the parties to work together to propose a
new schedule to the Court.
Thus, the parties should propose a date by which plaintiff’s expert can submit her
report on damages, any relevant deadlines for defendant’s rebuttal expert(s), and any
other changes to the Case Management Order by July 12, 2017.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to designate
plaintiff’s expert witness on damages (#33) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of time in
which to serve her expert report on damages (#52) is GRANTED.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the parties shall propose a new schedule for the
parties’ service of expert reports and any other changes to the Case Management Order
by July 12, 2017.
Dated this 29th day of June, 2017.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?