Strong v. Schenk Trucking, Inc. et al

Filing 55

ORDER overruling the Defendant's Objection 52 to Order on Appeal to Magistrate Judge Order. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BERNARD STRONG,
Plaintiff,

8:11CV295

vs.
ORDER
SCHENK TRUCKING, INC. and WILLIAM
DECKER,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on the objection, Filing No. 52, to the magistrate
judge’s order, Filing No. 46.

This case involves a vehicle accident.

Filing No. 1.

Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the deadlines for disclosure of expert witnesses
because she had been unable to take the deposition of defendant William Decker.
Filing No. 44. Until that deposition was taken, plaintiff argued she would be unable to
designate an expert, if one was needed. Defendants opposed this motion, Filing No.
45, on the basis that plaintiff had not shown good cause for such modification of the
progression order. The magistrate judge entered a text order, stating he had reviewed
the motion and briefs and found the extension should be granted. Filing No. 46. The
magistrate judge thereafter entered a new progression order. Filing No. 48.
Defendants have filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s order. Filing No. 52
and Filing No. 53. Defendants argue they have been prejudiced by this decision, as
now plaintiff gets a “free look” at their expert disclosure and can respond accordingly.
Defendants also argue that plaintiff did not show good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4).

The court has reviewed the filings and finds the decision of the magistrate judge
is not contrary to law or clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a); Edelstein v. Optimus Corp., No. 8:10CV61, 2012 WL 2192292, at *2 (D. Neb.
June 14, 2012). Nor does the court find any abuse of discretion. Sherman v. Winco
Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709, 714 (8th Cir. 2008). This is plaintiff’s first request for an
extension, and plaintiff only missed the deadline by a month. The reason given―an
inability to take the defendant’s deposition in time―appears to be a valid one. Plaintiff
has scheduled the deposition of this defendant. Accordingly, the defendants’ objections
are overruled.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ objections, Filing No. 52, are
overruled.
Dated this 13th day of July, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

2