Smith v. City of Omaha et al

Filing 95

ORDER - The plaintiff's Motion to Compel Mandatory Mediation (Filing No. 82 in case 8:12CV330; Filing No. 84 in case 8:12CV331) is denied, without prejudice. The plaintiff's Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion in Limine (Fil ing No. 93 in case 8:12CV330; Filing No. 96 in case 8:12CV331) is granted. The plaintiff shall have until August 18, 2014, to file a response to each of the defendants motions and to file a motion in limine challenging the admissibility of the def endants expert testimony pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 702. No further extensions of these deadlines will be granted without a showing that after an exercise of due diligence by the parties a manifest injustice would occur if a requested extension were not granted. Member Cases: 8:12-cv-00330-JFB-TDT, 8:12-cv-00331-JFB-TDT. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

TIFFANY SMITH,
Plaintiff,

8:12CV330

vs.
ORDER
CITY OF OMAHA, a political
subdivision existing and organized
in the State of Nebraska; OMAHA
POLICE DEPARTMENT; ALEX
HAYES, Chief of Police, individually
and in his official capacity;
BENJAMIN EDWARDS, AAREN
ANDERSON, and JERALD
SWANSON, Omaha Police Officers,
individually and in their official
capacities; DON KLEINE, Douglas
County Attorney, individually and in
his official capacity; JOHN DOE,
Douglas County Attorney,
individually and in his/her official
capacity; DOUGLAS COUNTY, a
political subdivision existing and
organized in the State of Nebraska;
and JOHN DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
______________________________
TIFFANY SMITH, as parent and
natural guardian of Deante Smith,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF OMAHA, a political
subdivision existing and organized
in the State of Nebraska; OMAHA
POLICE DEPARTMENT; ALEX
HAYES, Chief of Police, individually
and in his official capacity;
BENJAMIN EDWARDS, AAREN
ANDERSON, and JERALD
SWANSON, Omaha Police Officers,
individually and in their official
capacities; DON KLEINE, Douglas
County Attorney, individually and in
his official capacity; JOHN DOE,
Douglas County Attorney,

8:12CV331
ORDER

individually and in his/her official
capacity; DOUGLAS COUNTY, a
political subdivision existing and
organized in the State of Nebraska;
and JOHN DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s July 25, 2014, Motion to Compel
Mandatory Mediation (Filing No. 82 in case 8:12CV330; Filing No. 84 in case
8:12CV331). The plaintiff argues this matter is appropriate for mandatory mediation,
citing the court’s mediation plan, because the plaintiff’s physical injuries result in a
damage demand of less than $100,000. The plaintiff’s counsel fears more money will
be spent on litigation than damages are worth. Accordingly, the plaintiff contends that in
the interest of judicial efficiency and to save the litigants time and expense, the court
should compel the parties to participate in mandatory mediation.
This case was filed in September 2012. See Filing No. 1. Under the progression
order, discovery for this case concludes at the end of this month. See Filing No. 74.
The defendants have filed a motion in limine to prevent the plaintiff from using any
expert witnesses at trial based on the plaintiff’s alleged failure to timely and properly
disclose the witnesses. See Filing No. 86. The defendants also filed a motion for
partial summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Monell policy claims arguing the plaintiff
cannot show the existence of policy, custom, or practice, which proximately caused the
plaintiff’s injury. See Filing No. 89. The plaintiff seeks a second extension of time to
respond to both of the defendants’ motions and to file of motion of her own, challenging
the admissibility of the defendants’ expert witnesses based on some outstanding
discovery. See Filing No. 93. The trial of this matter is scheduled for November. See
Filing No. 74.
While some aspects of this case suggest it may be a candidate for mandatory
mediation, the court finds the nature and posture of the case do not make resolution of
the case by mediation a “practical possibility” as described by court’s Mediation Plan, at
this time. Upon consideration,

2

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Mandatory Mediation (Filing No. 82 in

case 8:12CV330; Filing No. 84 in case 8:12CV331) is denied, without prejudice.
2.

The plaintiff’s Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion in

Limine (Filing No. 93 in case 8:12CV330; Filing No. 96 in case 8:12CV331) is granted.
The plaintiff shall have until August 18, 2014, to file a response to each of the
defendants’ motions and to file a motion in limine challenging the admissibility of the
defendants’ expert testimony pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 702. No further extensions of
these deadlines will be granted without a showing that after an exercise of due diligence
by the parties a manifest injustice would occur if a requested extension were not
granted.
Dated this 14th day of August, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge

3