TRULUCK et al v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION et al

Filing 196

OPINION filed re. 163 and 164 . Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 10/19/2015. (drw)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

(Doc. Nos. 163 & 164)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
___________________________________
:
IN RE: PAULSBORO DERAILMENT
:
CASES
:
:
Michelle TRULUCK, et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
CONSOLIDATED RAIL
:
CORPORATION, et al.,
:
:
Defendants. :
___________________________________ :

Master Docket No. 13–0784
Civil No. 13–5763 (RBK/KMW)
OPINION

KUGLER, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court upon the motions of Defendants Consolidated Rail
Corporation (“Conrail”), Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“Norfolk Southern”) and CSX
Transportation, Inc. (“CSX”) for leave to file motions for partial summary judgment against
Plaintiffs Michelle Truluck (Doc. No. 163) and Abdeslam Sahla (Doc. No. 164). For the
following reasons, Defendants’ Motions are DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND
The basic facts of this case have been set forth in numerous Opinions issued by the Court

over the past nearly three years of litigation. The Court established May 22, 2015 as the deadline
for filing dispositive motions (Doc. No. 109). On May 21, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to
exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ medical causation expert, which the Court granted after a
Daubert hearing on August 6, 2015 (Doc. Nos. 160 and 161). Norfolk Southern and CSX filed
1

separate motions for summary judgment on May 21, 2015 (Doc. Nos. 112 and 113), which the
Court granted on August 18, 2015 (Doc. No. 167). On August 14, 2015, Defendants1 filed this
motion seeking leave to file a partial motion for summary judgment.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 governs pretrial management and scheduling orders.

Under Rule 16(b)(4), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the
judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The burden is on the moving party to “demonstrate
good cause and due diligence.” Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 614 F.3d
57, 84 (3d Cir. 2010). Furthermore, “the ‘good cause’ standard is not a low threshold.” J.G. v.
C.M., Civ. No. 11–2887, 2014 WL 1652793, at *1 (D.N.J. Apr. 23, 2014). “[S]cheduling orders
are at the heart of case management. If they can be disregarded without a specific showing of
good cause, their utility will be severely impaired.” Koplove v. Ford Motor Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18
(3d Cir. 1986).
The existence of “good cause” depends “primarily on the diligence, or lack thereof, of the
moving party.” Siebel v. Work At Home Vintage Employees, LLC, Civ. No. 12–1199, 2013 WL
6094558, at *3 (Nov. 18, 2013). “In assessing diligence, courts ask whether the movant
possessed, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have possessed, the knowledge
necessary to file the motion . . . before the deadline expired.” Abdallah v. JetBlue Airways Corp.,
Civ. No. 14–1050, 2015 WL 3618326, at *3 (D.N.J. June 9, 2015). A court may find “good
cause” to amend the scheduling order where “the movant learns of the facts supporting [the

1

As Norfolk Southern and CSX are no longer parties to this case, the motions are DENIED AS
MOOT as to Norfolk Southern and CSX.
2

motion] after expiration of the relevant filing deadline[.]” United States v. Cohan, Civ. No. 3:11–
0412, 2012 WL 4758142, at * 1 (D. Conn. Oct. 5, 2012).
III.

DISCUSSION
Conrail seeks leave to file motions for partial summary judgment against Plaintiffs

Michelle Truluck2 and Abdeslam Sahla “in light of this Court’s [August 6, 2015 Daubert Order]
excluding all of Plaintiff’s expert opinions as to medical causation[.]” Def.’s Br. at 1. Conrail
states that because the Daubert Order “did not occur until August 6, 2015, [Conrail is] not at all
dilatory in pursuing summary judgment.” Id. at 3. However, Conrail fails to meet its burden of
demonstrating good cause to modify the Court’s scheduling order.
Conrail filed its motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert on May 21, 2015. That the Court
subsequently granted that motion was entirely foreseeable and does not provide good cause to
modify the scheduling order. Conrail had the necessary knowledge, before the May 22, 2015
deadline, to file motions for partial summary judgment arguing that Plaintiffs failed to produce
evidence supporting causation. As Conrail fails to demonstrate good cause pursuant to Rule
16(b)(4), its motions for leave to file motions for partial summary judgment are DENIED.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motions are DENIED.

Dated: 10/19/2015

s/ Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge

2

As Plaintiff Michelle Truluck’s action has been settled and dismissed, Conrail’s motion as to
her will be DENIED AS MOOT.
3