Covey v. System USA, LLC et al

Filing 270

ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White granting in part and denying in part motion to extend scheduling order dates ( 262 Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Dates) and denying without prejudice motion to bifurcate ( 264 Motion to Bifurcate ) with an Amended Scheduling Order to follow (lal, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Angela Covey,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-CIV-390-RAW

System S.p.A., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the court is the Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Dates [Docket No. 262] and
the Motion to Bifurcate Liability Issues from Damages Issues [Docket No. 264]. This case was
originally filed on October 31, 2011, almost three years ago, regarding an accident which
occurred on August 15, 2010. Plaintiff is also still pursuing her claim for benefits in the
Oklahoma Workers Compensation Court. An Amended Complaint was filed on January 16,
2012 [Docket No. 21]. A Scheduling Order was entered on March 6, 2013 [Docket No. 177].
An Amended Scheduling Order was entered on December 3, 2013, setting the matter on the
court’s September 3, 2014 trial docket [Docket No. 212]. On July 14, 2014, the case was
randomly reassigned to this court and all pending deadlines and hearings were stricken to be
reset at a later date [Docket No. 265].
Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Dates
Prior to the case being reassigned, Plaintiff requested the court extend the current
scheduling order by one hundred twenty (120) days. Defendant System objects to the requested
extension.
Plaintiff was released from treatment on or about April 17, 2014. The current Amended

Scheduling Order [Docket No. 212] provided a discovery cutoff of July 7, 2014. In spite of the
then-looming discovery deadline, Plaintiff states that they had been consulting experts to conduct
evaluations of Plaintiff’s post-treatment vocational opportunities, rehabilitation and damages.
The motion indicates that Defendant System requested various depositions on June 3, 2014, and
that those depositions have not occurred as of the date of the filing of the instant motion.
The court has considered the factors in Magraff v. Lowes HIW, Inc., 217 Fed.Appx. 759
(10th Cir. 2007), as to whether a party has demonstrated excusable neglect justifying an extension
of time:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

the danger of prejudice to the non-movant;
the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings;
the reason for the delay, including whether it was in the reasonable control
of the movant; and
whether the movant acted in good faith.

Id. at 761. Under these factors, the court does not believe Plaintiff has shown good cause for
an additional extension of four months. This matter was filed two years and nine months ago.
The court has set multiple schedules in this matter, yet none of the deadlines appear to have been
met. Due to the random reassignment of the case, however, an extension has essentially been
provided. The court concurs with Defendant System that this action can and should be
adjudicated without additional delay. If Plaintiff requires further medical treatment and will
incur future medical expenses, those issues can be adequately addressed through expert
testimony.
Defendant System indicates their counsel is facing three scheduling conflicts if Plaintiff’s
request for a 120 day extension is granted. Such an extension would place the matter on the

2

court’s January 2015 trial docket. One of defense counsel’s conflicts is a trial currently set in
Cleveland County District Court on the October 27, 2014 trial docket. Counsel states that they
would be diligently preparing for and conducting that state court trial during the month of
October, preventing any substantial preparation in the instant matter during that time frame.1
Another potential conflict is the end of the year holidays which could be expensive and difficult
for Defendants to travel to the United States. The third conflict is a vacation planned by defense
counsel from December 27, 2014 through January 11, 2014. The court has taken these matters
into consideration in setting a new schedule.
The Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Dates [Docket No. 262] is granted in part and
denied in part. The court sets the matter on the December 2, 2014 trial docket. An Amended
Scheduling Order will be entered concurrent with this Order.
Motion to Bifurcate
Also before the court is Defendant System’s Renewed Motion to Bifurcate Issues of
Liability from Issues of Damages [Docket No. 264]. A ruling on this issue was previously
entered by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West on December 4, 2013 [Docket No. 214].
Defendant refiled the instant motion on July 8, 2014 after Plaintiff filed her most recent motion
to extend the scheduling order dates.
A court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues or claims “for
convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). District

1

The court has considered that counsel will be preparing for the Cleveland County trial
during the month of October. If that trial remains as currently scheduled, counsel may have to
delegate upcoming discovery matters in this case to other counsel of record.
3

courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to sever issues for trial. United States v.
ConAgra, Inc., 624 F.3d 1275, 1283 (10th Cir. 2010); Easton v. City of Boulder, Colorado, 776
F.2d 1441, 1447 (10th Cir. 1985).
This court acknowledges the previous ruling set forth by the Magistrate Judge stating that
the motion does not meet the requirements of Rule 42(b). This court is not inclined to conduct
multiple trials with multiple juries. The court believes that the jury will receive adequate
instructions as to the issues of damages and liability. Still, this issue may be revisited at the
Pretrial Conference. Defendant System’s Renewed Motion to Bifurcate Issues of Liability from
Issues of Damages [Docket No. 264] is DENIED without prejudice.
Conclusion
It is therefore ordered:
1.

The Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Dates [Docket No. 262] is granted in
part and denied in part. The court sets the matter on the December 2, 2014 trial
docket. An Amended Scheduling Order will be entered concurrent with this
Order.

2.

Defendant System’s Renewed Motion to Bifurcate Issues of Liability from Issues
of Damages [Docket No. 264] is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated this 13th day of August, 2014.

____________________________________
HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

4