Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Progress Rail Services Corporation

Filing 269

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the 268 Objection to Order Denying Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Summary Judgment is overruled. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,

CASE NO. 8:10CV38

Plaintiff,
vs.

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

PROGRESS RAIL SERVICES
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the Objection to Order Denying Motion for
Leave to File a Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 268) filed by Defendant
Progress Rail Services Corporation (“Progress Rail”). For the reasons discussed below,
the Objection will be overruled.
On May 14, 2013, Progress Rail filed its Motion for Leave to File a Motion for
Summary Judgment (Filing No. 266), requesting that, in light of the Court’s ruling on
Progress Rail’s Daubert motion (See Filing Nos. 227, 263), Progress Rail be permitted
to file a motion for summary judgment seeking to establish that the Plaintiff is unable to
prove an essential element of its case-in-chief, i.e., causation.

On May 15, 2013,

Magistrate Judge Gossett denied Progress Rail’s Motion for Leave, finding that there
was insufficient justification for modifying the Court’s scheduling order, keeping in mind
the July 13, 2012, deadline for filing summary judgment motions and this case’s June
11, 2013, trial date. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for
good cause and with the judge's consent.”) Progress Rail objects to the denial of its
Motion for Leave, contending that there has been no finding that Progress Rail failed to
act diligently in bringing its Motion for Leave.

When a party objects to a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive pretrial
matter, a district court may set aside any part of the magistrate judge's order shown to
be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
After reviewing the record and Judge Gossett’s Order denying Progress Rail’s
Motion for Leave, the Court finds that Judge Gossett’s findings were neither clearly
erroneous nor were they contrary to the law. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED: the Objection to Order Denying Motion for Leave to File a
Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 268) filed by Defendant Progress Rail
Services Corporation is overruled.

Dated this 16th day of May, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge

2