Consolidation Coal Company v. 3M Company, et al

Filing 569

ORDER granting in part #558 Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines and granting #568 Motion for Leave to File Reply - Plaintiffs are directed to promptly file their reply, which the Court has considered in ruling on the motion to extend deadlines. The Court will extend the expert deadlines by 90 days: reports from retained experts shall be disclosed no later than September 30, 2011, and reports from rebuttal experts shall be disclosed no later than December, 30, 2011. The Court will consider further extension of the expert deadlines and extension of the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines at the September 7, 2011 status conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Daniel on 06/09/2011. (Baker, C.)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
d/b/a PROGRESS ENERGY CAROLINAS,
INC.,
Plaintiff,

v.
3M COMPANY, et aI.,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _--=D=....:e=D=en=d=an=t=s'-.

CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

v.
3M COMPANY, et aI.,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _--'=D=e=D=en=d=an=t=s'-.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)

)

)

)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 5:08-CV-460-FL
(CONSOLIDATED)

Civil Action No.: 5:08-CV-463-FL
(CONSOLIDATED)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion and Memorandum to Extend
Deadlines For Disclosure of Expert Testimony, for Completion of Phase I Discovery, and for
Dispositive Motions [CP&L DE-563; Consol DE-558], to which Defendants have responded
[CP&L DE-568; Consol DE-564]. Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Leave to File a reply in
support of their motion to extend deadlines [CP&L DE-572; Consol DE-568].
Flanagan has referred the motions to undersigned for decision.

Chief Judge

Plaintiffs' motion to file a reply in GRANTED, and Plaintiffs are directed to promptly
file their reply, which the Court has considered in ruling on the motion to extend deadlines.
Plaintiffs seek to extend the foHowing deadlines by one year: reports from retained experts
(currently June 30, 2011); reports from rebuttal experts (currently September 30, 2011);
completion of Phase I discovery (currently November 30, 2011); and filing potentially
dispositive motions (currently January 6, 2012). Plaintiffs note several factors that necessitate
extension of these deadlines, including discovery disputes, extensions of time to respond to
discovery, and delay in scheduling Rule 30 (b)(6) depositions. Defendants responded that some
adjustments to the schedule may be warranted, but that a one year extension of all remaining
deadlines may not ultimately be necessary and is not justified at this time.
While the parties have worked diligently through discovery to date, this is a complex case
with numerous parties, and the Court finds good cause to make some adjustment to the
deadlines. However, the Court agrees with Defendants that it would be improvident to extend all
the deadlines by one year at this time. Therefore, for good cause shown, Plaintiffs' motion to
extend deadlines is GRANTED IN PART, and the Court will extend the expert deadlines by 90
days: reports from retained experts shall be disclosed no later than September 30, 2011, and
reports from rebuttal experts shall be disclosed no later than December, 30, 2011. The Court
will consider further extension of the expert deadlines and extension of the discovery and
dispositive motions deadlines at the September 7,2011 status conference.
This the

~ ~ay of June, 2011.

~c~
DAVID~. DANii

United States Magistrate Judge

2

I