Fernandez v. Southwestern Railroad of New Mexico et al
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Lourdes A. Martinez GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 47 Motion for Extension of Time to Conduct Experts' Depositions. (atc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
No. CIV-15-1165 MCA/LAM
THE WESTERN GROUP, L.C., and
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO CONDUCT EXPERTS’ DEPOSITIONS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Extend Time
Discovery Period [sic] to Conduct Expert Witness Depositions (Doc. 47), filed March 30, 2017.
Pursuant to the Court’s order for expedited briefing [Doc. 49], Defendants filed a response on
April 4, 2017 [Doc. 52], and Plaintiff filed a reply the same day [Doc. 53]. Having considered
the motion, response, reply, and record of the case, the Court FINDS that the motion shall be
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
In his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to extend the discovery period in this case by sixty
(60) days for the limited purpose of conducting expert witness depositions. [Doc. 47 at 3-4]. In
response, Defendants state that Plaintiff’s counsel delayed in providing dates for Plaintiff’s
experts’ depositions, and then only provided dates in May for those depositions, which is after
Defendants’ deadline to provide their expert reports. [Doc. 52 at 3-4]. Defendants contend that
Plaintiff fails to set forth good cause for his motion and that he has not engaged in due diligence
to meet the Court-ordered deadlines in this case. See id. at 5-6. In reply, Plaintiff states that, in
an effort to resolve this discovery dispute, he has offered two dates in April for his experts’
depositions. See [Doc. 53 at 2]. Plaintiff states that he is asking the Court to extend the
discovery deadline to depose Defendants’ experts only, and that he withdraws any request to
extend the discovery deadline to conduct depositions of Plaintiff’s experts. See id. at 3.
The Court has already granted the parties’ request for a sixty (60) day extension of time
to provide their expert disclosures. See [Doc. 35] (granting Doc. 34). On February 1, 2017, the
Court held a hearing in this case, at which the Court stated that the parties could file a motion to
extend the discovery deadline in this case for the limited purpose of taking expert depositions.
See [Doc. 39] (Clerk’s Minutes). However, the Court also “instructed the parties to select those
deposition dates as soon as possible to avoid any further delays.” Id. Despite the Court’s
instruction, and knowing that Defendants’ expert disclosures are due on May 2, 2017, Plaintiff’s
counsel only offered Defendants dates in May for Plaintiff’s experts’ depositions. Plaintiff’s
counsel’s explanation that she has a trial set in April and would like to take time off after the trial
does not constitute good cause for further delays of the parties’ expert deadlines in this case.
Nevertheless, since the parties have agreed to take Plaintiff’s experts’ depositions on
May 4, 2017 and May 8, 2017 (see Doc. 47-1 at 2), and it appears that at least one of these
depositions may be moved up to April 24, 2017 (see Doc. 53 at 2), the Court will allow the
parties a limited extension of time for Defendants to depose Plaintiff’s experts prior to producing
their expert reports, and for Plaintiff to conduct depositions of Defendants’ experts after those
reports are disclosed. The Court will not grant any further extensions of time in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Extend Time
Discovery Period [sic] to Conduct Expert Witness Depositions (Doc. 47) is GRANTED in
part, and the parties’ deadlines are extended as follows:
Plaintiff’s experts must be deposed by:
May 8, 2017
Defendants’ expert disclosures:
May 19, 2017
Defendants’ experts must be deposed by:
June 2, 2017
All other deadlines in this case shall remain in effect and are not extended.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LOURDES A. MARTÍNEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?