Garrison Southfield Park LLC v. Closed Loop Refining and Recovery, Inc. et al
Filing
764
ORDER granting #735 Motion for Revision of Deadlines in Preliminary PretrialOrder. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 6/3/21. (sem)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GARRISON SOUTHFIELD
PARK, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:17-cv-783
vs.
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
CLOSED LOOP REFINING AND
RECOVERY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Revision of Deadlines in Preliminary
Pretrial Order filed by Plaintiff Garrison Southfield Park LLC1 and Defendants Complete
Recycling Solutions, LLC; Haier America Company, L.L.C.; Micro Center, Inc.; RMG
Enterprise, LLC, and Sony Electronics, Inc. (“the Moving Parties”). (ECF No. 735.)
Defendants Electronic Manufacturers Recycling Management Company (“MRM”) and Samsung
Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) have responded in opposition. (ECF Nos. 741, 743.)2 The
Moving Parties have filed a Reply. (ECF No. 748.) For the following reasons, the Motion is
GRANTED.
The motion was filed jointly in this case and in Case No. 2:19-cv-1041 on behalf of both
Plaintiffs.
2
The Moving Parties represent in their motion that LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc. also indicated its
objection to the proposed schedule. It does not appear, however, that this party filed a response.
The Moving Parties further represent that the remaining Defendants did not respond to the
invitation to join the motion. (ECF No. 735, at 3.)
1
I.
The Moving Parties assert that the addition of new parties necessitates the requested
revision to the case management schedule.3 They propose the following revisions.
Events
Prior Deadlines in
Preliminary Pretrial
Order of 1/22/2020
Revised Deadlines
Initial Disclosures for New
Defendants
February 28, 2020
May 31, 2021
Completion of Factual
Discovery
March 1, 2021
January 31, 2022
Parties’ Designation of Primary
Experts and Subject Matter
August 14, 2020
January 31, 2022
Parties’ Designation of Rebuttal
Experts and Subject Matter
September 15, 2020
February 28, 2022
Settlement Conference
(Mediation)
March 2021
February 2022
Primary Expert Reports1
October 16, 2020
March 31, 2022
Rebuttal Expert Reports
December 4, 2020
April 29, 2022
Completion of Expert Discovery
N/A
June 30, 2022
Dispositive Motions
April 1, 2021
July 29, 2022
MRM objects to the proposed schedule, contending that, given its evident lack of
liability, such a schedule is inequitable and unduly burdensome. As an alternative, MRM
3
The Moving Parties explain that they are requesting that all primary and rebuttal expert
witnesses be required to submit expert reports pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B). (ECF No.
735, at n. 1.) In its response, MRM states that it does not object to this request. (ECF No. 741,
at n.5.) SEA does not address this issue as the bulk of its brief is devoted to arguing in support
of its request for a hearing to be scheduled on the pending objections to the Kuusakoski
settlement.
2
proposes the following bifurcated discovery schedule designed to address the issue of liability
first.
Events
Prior Deadlines in
Preliminary Pretrial
Order of 1/22/2020
Phase I: Liability
Initial Disclosures for New Defendants
February 28, 2020
Completion of Factual
March 1, 2021
Discovery
Plaintiffs’ Designation of Primary
August 14, 2020
Experts and Subject Matter
Defendants’ Designation of Primary
September 1, 2020
Experts and Subject Matter
Plaintiffs’ Designation of Rebuttal
September 15, 2020
Experts and Subject Matter
Defendants’ Designation of Rebuttal
N/A
Experts and Subject Matter
Primary Expert Reports5
October 16, 2020
Rebuttal Expert Reports
December 4, 2020
Completion of Expert Discovery
March 1, 2021
Dispositive Motions
April 1, 2021
March 2021
Settlement Conference
(Mediation)
Proposed Damages Phase Case
Management Calendar Motions
Phase II: Damages/Allocation
N/A
MRM’s Proposed
Revised Deadlines
April 16, 2021
April 15, 2022
April 29, 2022
May 13, 2022
May 27, 2022
June 27, 2022
July 27, 2022
December 22, 2022
March 22, 2023
May 2023
2 Weeks After
Judgment on
Dispositive
Motions
According to MRM, it is entitled to twelve months to conduct discovery consistent with
the amount of time afforded to the earlier defendants. MRM asserts that this length of time is
necessary because the scope of discovery has not changed, the discovery conducted to date has
been extremely limited and is largely irrelevant to the allegations directed toward it, and both the
scale and complexity of this CERCLA litigation require it. MRM also contends that its proposed
schedule, requiring the completion of expert discovery and the filing of dispositive motions
before a settlement conference, will facilitate a meaningful discussion at such a conference. SEA
3
supports MRM’s proposed schedule but requests that the Court order early and regular mediation
and schedule oral argument on the pending Motion for Settlement with the Kuusakoski
Defendants.
In Reply, the Moving Parties note that they have proposed a schedule spanning
approximately 18 months from the date MRM and SEA filed their answers and that MRM’s
schedule would add an additional ten months to the schedule focused on the issue of liability
alone. Further, they assert that their proposed schedule will not prejudice MRM because MRM
will not be required to wait until the end of discovery or the dispositive motion deadline to file a
dispositive motion on the issue of liability. Additionally, they contend that the prior parties have
undertaken substantial discovery, that all the evidence exchanged to date has been provided to
MRM and SEA, and that the settlements that have been negotiated and filed reduce the amount
of remaining work. The Moving Parties also assert that the case law cited by MRM does not
support its view that the circumstances of this action warrant bifurcation. Finally, with respect to
the timing of mediation, the Moving Parties explain that their proposal that mediation be ordered
to be conducted after the close of fact discovery represents a middle ground between MRM’s and
SEA’s proposals.
II.
The Undersigned concludes that the Moving Parties have the stronger arguments here. In
response, MRM and SEA have not demonstrated that their proposed case schedule will either
expedite this case or economize resources. See Moraine Properties, LLC v. Ethyl Corp., No.
3:07-CV-229, 2008 WL 11351579, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2008) (denying request for “unique
discovery schedule that would see an early termination of discovery on the issue of whether
Defendant is a potentially responsible party” on same basis). In fact, it appears that quite the
4
contrary is likely given that their proposed approach minimally would add several months to the
case schedule. Not only that, the proposed bifurcation also lends itself to disputes over whether
certain evidence is relevant to a particular issue. Further, as recognized by the Court in Moraine
when denying a similar motion, courts within the Sixth Circuit appear to have utilized devices
such as a bifurcation of trial rather than a bifurcation of discovery. Id. Additionally, as the
Moving Parties note, while mediation under the schedule adopted here will not take place until
the conclusion of fact discovery, nothing prevents any agreement to mediate at an earlier date as
circumstances evolve. Accordingly, the Moving Parties’ proposed schedule will be adopted in
its entirety with an amendment to reflect a new due date for initial disclosures.
Finally, to the extent that SEA directs its response to the issue of a hearing on the
settlement with the Kuusakoski Defendants, the Undersigned defers to the District Judge on this
matter and will not consider the issue of scheduling oral argument here.
III.
For the reasons stated above, the Motion for Revision of Deadlines in Preliminary Pretrial
Order filed by Plaintiff Garrison Southfield Park LLC and Defendants Complete Recycling
Solutions, LLC; Haier America Company, L.L.C.; Micro Center, Inc.; RMG Enterprise, LLC,
and Sony Electronics, Inc. (“the Moving Parties”) (ECF No. 735) is GRANTED. The
Preliminary Pretrial Order dated January 22, 2020 (ECF No. 502) is MODIFIED as follows:
INITIAL DISCLOSURES
Initial disclosures shall be made by JUNE 30, 2021.
DISCOVERY PROCEDURES
All fact discovery shall be completed by JANUARY 31, 2022. All expert discovery shall be
completed by JUNE 30, 2022. For purposes of complying with this order, all parties shall schedule
their discovery in such a way as to require all responses to discovery to be served prior to the cutoff date, and shall file any motions relating to discovery within the discovery period unless it is
5
impossible or impractical to do so. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on any matter
related to discovery, they are directed to arrange a conference with the Court.
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
Any dispositive motions shall be filed by JULY 29, 2022.
EXPERT TESTIMONY
Parties to designate primary experts and subject matter by JANUARY 31, 2022. Parties to
designate rebuttal experts and subject matter by FEBRUARY 28, 2022. Primary expert reports
must be produced by MARCH 31, 2022. Rebuttal expert reports must be produced by APRIL 29,
2022. If the expert is specifically retained, the reports must conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B),
unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. If the expert is not specifically retained, the reports must
conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C), unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A), leave of court is not required to depose a testifying expert.
SETTLEMENT
The parties agree to make a good faith effort to settle this case. The parties understand that this
case will be referred to an attorney mediator, or to the Magistrate Judge, for a settlement conference
in FEBRUARY 2022. In order for the conference to be meaningful, the parties agree to complete
all discovery that may affect their ability to evaluate this case prior to the settlement conference.
The parties understand that they will be expected to comply fully with the settlement order which
requires inter alia that settlement demands and offers be exchanged prior to the conference and
that principals of the parties attend the conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 3, 2021
/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers______
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
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?