Brown v. Albertsons, LLC

Filing 30

ORDER that 25 MOTION to Reopen Expert Discovery and for Extension/Modification of Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Fourth Request) is GRANTED with respect to the expert depositions outlined in the motion, and discovery is extended until Nov ember 30, 2017 for the limited purpose of taking the 6 expert depositions identified in the motion. The motion is DENIED with respect to the request to reopen expert discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 9/11/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

TAMECIA BROWN,

8
9
10

v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-01991-JAD-PAL
Plaintiff,

ORDER
(Mot Ext Time – ECF No. 25)

ALBERTSONS, LLC,
Defendant.

11
12

The court conducted a hearing on September 7, 2017, on defendant’s Motion to Reopen

13

Expert Discovery and for Extension/Modification of Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Fourth

14

Request) (ECF No. 25). David Tanner appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and Justin Smerber

15

appeared on behalf of defendant. The court has considered the motion, plaintiff’s Response (ECF

16

No. 27), defendant’s Reply (ECF No. 28), and the arguments of counsel at the hearing.

17

This motion was filed on August 25, 2017, more than three weeks after the parties were

18

unable to settle this case in a private mediation held on August 1, 2017. Defendant seeks to extend

19

or modify the court’s discovery plan and scheduling order deadline to allow the parties to depose

20

experts whose depositions were not taken to avoid the expense while attempting to mediate their

21

disputes. Defendant also seeks to reopen the expert discovery deadline to designate an orthopedic

22

spine expert. This is the fourth request to extend the discovery plan and scheduling order

23

deadlines.

24

Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to the extent it requests an opportunity to depose the

25

experts whose depositions were held in abeyance while the parties attempted to settle this case.

26

However, plaintiff opposes the motion to reopen discovery to allow defendant to disclose an

27

orthopedic spine expert.

28
1

1

Having reviewed and considered the moving and responsive papers, supporting exhibits

2

and arguments of counsel, the court will grant the motion to modify the discovery plan and

3

scheduling order to allow the parties to depose the experts whose depositions were not completed

4

while the parties attempted to settle this case in a private mediation. However, the court will deny

5

the motion to reopen discovery to allow defendant to retain and disclose an orthopedic spine

6

surgeon.

7

It is clear from the court’s review of the voluminous record in this case that plaintiff timely

8

disclosed the injuries she sustained related to this accident, including her left knee injury and back

9

injuries. The plaintiff provided initial disclosures and has supplemented them as additional

10

treatment has been received. Plaintiff answered interrogatories describing her injuries which

11

included injuries to her low back. She was treated at Sunrise Hospital a day after the slip and fall

12

involved in this case for injuries to her knee and low back and those records were disclosed and

13

produced in discovery. Plaintiff disclosed that she was initially treated at the hospital for low back

14

injuries. She subsequently treated with a chiropractor and was later referred to a pain management

15

specialist, when her chiropractor advised her he could do nothing further for her. All of these

16

records were disclosed to opposing counsel in a timely manner. Plaintiff timely disclosed her

17

expert witnesses including Dr. Cash, a spine surgeon.

18

Plaintiff was deposed on December 21, 2016. At her deposition she testified about the

19

treatment she had and was receiving for her low back which included injections. She also testified

20

that she had been told she might need surgery if the injections were not effective. She testified

21

was scheduled for injection treatment the day after her deposition.

22

The parties’ third stipulation to extend discovery asked the court to delay expensive expert

23

depositions until after private mediation. Defense counsel stipulated that the only remaining

24

discovery “are the depositions of the parties’ disclosed experts” and that the witness identified in

25

the stipulation “are the only discovery actions remaining in this action.” The 6 disclosed experts

26

were identified in the stipulation and proposed order. It seems clear to the court from a review of

27

the record as a whole that defendant made a decision not to retain an orthopedic spine specialist

28

because the medical specials timely disclosed during discovery were not substantial, i.e., only
2

1

approximately $15,000. While the treatment costs were modest the medical records disclosed

2

early in the case in initial disclosures included an MRI of her spine which documented objective

3

evidence of a back injury. Timely disclosed records also reflected ongoing treatment with a

4

chiropractor and a pain management specialist. Plaintiff advised defense counsel at her deposition

5

more than 8 months ago that she had been told that if her injection treatments with her pain

6

management specialist were not effective she might need surgery. The only thing that has changed

7

is that plaintiff has recently consulted with spine surgeon, Dr. Cash, as a treating physician whose

8

treatment notes indicate she may experience future exacerbation to her lumbar spine “as there is

9

structural compromise to the spine and will require future treatment.” However, that treatment has

10

not yet been decided, and the MRI of the spine produced during initial disclosures revealed

11

objective evidence of spinal injuries at multiple levels. Under all these circumstances, the court

12

finds defendant has not established good cause or excusable neglect to reopen discovery to retain

13

an expert on an injury plaintiff disclosed from the beginning of this case.

14

IT IS ORDERED:

15

1. Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Expert Discovery and for Extension/Modification of

16

Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Fourth Request) (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED

17

with respect to the expert depositions outlined in the motion, and discovery is extended

18

until November 30, 2017 for the limited purpose of taking the 6 expert depositions

19

identified in the motion.

20

2. The motion is DENIED with respect to the request to reopen expert discovery.

21

DATED this 11th day of September, 2017.

22
23
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3