Michael C Zimmer D C Professional Corp v. Moore Medical, LLC et al
MEMORANDUM AND AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. (read order for details and deadlines) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint motion for leave to file briefs in excess of the page limitation [# 42 ] is granted. Plaintiff may file up to a 19 page memora ndum in support of its motion to compel, and defendants may file up to a 19 page response in opposition to the motion to compel within 14 days of service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for leave to amend the case management order [Doc. # 37 ] is granted, and the amended schedule included herein shall apply to class certification only in this case. The Court will hold oral argument on the motion for class certification on January 20, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 14-South. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 04/28/2014. (CBL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MICHAEL C. ZIMMER, D.C.,
on behalf of himself and others
MOORE MEDICAL, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 4:13CV1000 CDP
MEMORANDUM AND AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER CLASS CERTIFICATION
This matter is before me on plaintiff’s motion to extend the case management
order deadlines. Plaintiff requests a two-month extension of the class certification
deadlines to review additional materials produced by defendants on the eve of the
close of discovery. Defendants oppose the request, claiming that plaintiff waited too
long to ask for the extension and that the documents are not relevant to class
certification. Although some of defendants’ arguments may have weight, I find that
plaintiff has demonstrated good cause (or “exceptional circumstances,” to use the
language of the case management order) for modification of the discovery schedule.
I do not believe that plaintiff unduly delayed in making this request, as the additional
faxes were only produced on April 7, 2014, and the motion was filed a week later.1
While defendants may argue that these additional faxes are not relevant to class
certification, plaintiff must still be given the opportunity to review this evidence and
decide this issue for itself. Moreover, this requested extension is relatively brief and
not made for the purposes of delay or harassment of defendants. Although defendants
complain that they would be prejudiced by the extension, they fail to demonstrate any
real or substantial prejudice that would result from an brief extension of the
deadlines.2 Under these circumstances, I will amend the case management order as
set out below.
The parties also jointly request leave to file briefs in support of, and in
opposition to, plaintiff’s motion to compel in excess of the page limits. I will grant
this request and permit the parties to brief the motion according to the schedule set
out in the motion.
Finally, both parties have recently filed motions to compel. Although they are
not fully briefed, I have read the motions and note that these issues are ones that
Defendants can hardly be heard to make a timeliness argument, since they have just now
filed a motion to compel discovery responses despite being informed by plaintiff in December of
2013 that it planned to stand on its objections to the request.
The extension may also work to the benefit of defendants, given their pending motion to
could — and should — have been resolved by counsel. I encourage the parties to use
their best efforts to resolve these disputes, as it appears that each side makes some
valid (and also meritless) arguments. Parties are rarely satisfied when courts
intervene in discovery, and I predict this case will be no exception.
Accordingly and for good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint motion for leave to file briefs in
excess of the page limitation [#42] is granted. Plaintiff may file up to a 19 page
memorandum in support of its motion to compel, and defendants may file up to a 19
page response in opposition to the motion to compel within 14 days of service.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for leave to amend the case
management order [Doc. # 37] is granted, and the following amended schedule shall
apply to class certification only in this case and will be modified only upon a
showing of exceptional circumstances:
Disclosure shall proceed in the following manner:
(a) Plaintiff shall disclose all expert witnesses and shall provide the
reports required by Rule 26(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., no later than July 6, 2014, and shall
make expert witnesses available for depositions, and have depositions completed, no
later than August 20, 2014.
(b) Defendant shall disclose all expert witnesses and shall provide the
reports required by Rule 26(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., no later than August 20, 2014, and
shall make expert witnesses available for depositions, and have depositions
completed, no later than September 11, 2014.
(c) The presumptive limits of ten (10) depositions per side as set forth
in Rule 30(a)(2)(A), Fed.R.Civ.P., and twenty-five (25) interrogatories per party as
set forth in Rule 33(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., shall apply.
(d) Requests for physical or mental examinations of parties pursuant
to Rule 35, Fed.R.Civ.P., are not anticipated.
(e) The parties shall complete all class fact discovery in this case no
later than June 15, 2014. All class expert discovery shall be completed no later than
September 11, 2014.
Motions to compel shall be pursued in a diligent and timely
manner, but in no event filed more than eleven (11) days following the discovery
deadline set out above.
Any motion for class certification, memorandum in support of class
certification, and supporting evidence must be filed no later than October 8, 2014.
Opposition briefs and evidence shall be filed no later than November 24, 2014 and
any reply brief may be filed no later than December 21, 2014. The Court will hold
oral argument on the motion for class certification on January 20, 2015, at 9:00
a.m. in Courtroom 14-South.
Any other deadline not specifically amended above remains in full force
and effect. Failure to comply with any part of this order may result in the imposition
Dated this 28th day of April, 2014.
CATHERINE D. PERRY
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?