Acosta et al v. Tyson Foods
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 98 Motion to Extend. The progression order 94 is hereby amended. The deadlines to serve the opposing party with the statements required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) regarding each expert witness a party expects to call to testify at trial are extended. The plaintiffs shall have until February 10, 2012. The defendant shall have until March 16, 2012. Rebuttal expert disclosures may be made not later than April 6, 2012. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MANUEL ACOSTA, et al.,
TYSON FOODS, INC.,
This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Time Related to
Expert Witness Disclosures (Filing No. 98), the defendant’s brief (Filing No. 99), and the
plaintiffs’ reply (Filing No. 100). The plaintiffs seek a second extension of the deadline to
provide an expert witness report. The plaintiffs initially sought additional time for two
experts, but have now provided one expert’s report. The plaintiffs contend the additional
time is necessary due to the late receipt of discovery from the defendant. The plaintiffs
state the defendant would not suffer any prejudice from the extension because the
plaintiffs agree to shorten their own time for rebuttal expert disclosures rather than extend
the progression order deadlines.
The defendant opposes the extension under the
circumstances because the defendant agreed to a previous extension, the plaintiffs could
have anticipated the current situation, and the sought deadlines would inconvenience the
defendant due to a trial schedule about which the plaintiffs’ counsel was aware.
The court finds the plaintiffs fail to provide good cause for the extent of the
additional extension of time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); Bradford v. DANA Corp., 249
F.3d 807, 809-10 (8th Cir. 2001); see also Thorn v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla.,
Inc., 192 F.R.D. 308, 309 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (“In demonstrating good cause, the moving
party must establish that the ‘scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite a party’s diligent
efforts.’”) (paraphrasing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee notes (1983 amendment)).
The plaintiffs have had sufficient notice of the deadlines previously agreed upon and the
timing for receipt of discovery. However, because one of the expert witnesses requires the
newly disclosed expert opinion to provide an opinion, the court will allow a brief extension.
IT IS ORDERED:
The plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Time Related to Expert Witness Disclosures (Filing
No. 98) as amended by (Filing No. 100) are granted in part. The progression order (Filing
No. 94) is hereby amended.
The deadlines to serve the opposing party with the
statements required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) regarding each expert witness a party
expects to call to testify at trial are extended. The plaintiffs shall have until February 10,
2012. The defendant shall have until March 16, 2012. Rebuttal expert disclosures may
be made not later than April 6, 2012.
Dated this 30th day of January, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate 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?