Osborne et al v. Kniceley (PLR1)

Filing 50

ORDER: The Defendants SHALL file their response to the oral motion on or before May 5, 2017. The Defendants' Objection to Plaintiff's Expert Witness Disclosure [Doc. 34 ] is DENIED. The Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and Extend Discovery Deadline [Doc. 38 ] is well-taken, and it is GRANTED. The deadline to complete all discovery shall be extended to July 3, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 5/2/17. Associated Cases: 3:16-cv-00004-PLR-HBG, 3:16-cv-00024-PLR-HBG (JBR) Modified to reflect c/m on 5/2/2017 (JBR).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE

CARL C. OSBORNE, Surviving Spouse and
)
Next of Kin of Deceased, JANICE K. OSBORNE, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
STEVEN E. KNICELEY and
)
GILBERT WYATT,
)
)
Defendants,
)
)
)
STEVEN E. KNICELEY and
)
TARA KNICELEY,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CARL C. OSBORNE, Surviving Spouse and
)
Next of Kin of Deceased, JANICE K. OSBORNE, )
and GILBERT WYATT,
)
)
Defendant.
)

No. 3:16-CV-4-PLR-HBG
Lead Case Consolidated with

No. 3:16-CV-24-PLR-HBG

ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is the Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiff’s Expert Witness Disclosure
[Doc. 34] and the Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and Extend Discovery Deadline
[Doc. 38]. The parties appeared before the Court on April 28, 2017, for a motion hearing. 1

1

The Court will issue a separate order on the remaining Motions [Docs. 37, 40, 46, and 47].

Attorneys David C. Hollow, Harry Stephen Gillman, and M. Christopher Coffey appeared on
behalf of the Plaintiffs. Attorney Hannah Lowe appeared on behalf of Defendants Steven Kniceley
and Gilbert Wyatt. 2
As an initial matter, the Court notes that the hearing was also set to address Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend [Doc. 37], Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default [Doc. 40], Plaintiff’s Motion
to Strike Answer [Doc. 46], and Defendants’ Motion to Amend [Doc. 47]. During the hearing, the
Plaintiff orally moved to amend his Motion to Amend [Doc. 37] in order to allege additional
reasons, which were recently discovered, for requesting punitive damages. The Court permitted
the Defendants time to file a written response to the Plaintiff’s oral motion. The Defendants
SHALL file their response to the oral motion on or before May 5, 2017.
With respect to the Defendants’ Objection [Doc. 34], the Defendants argue the Plaintiff’s
expert disclosures were untimely and should be stricken. The Defendants submit that Plaintiff’s
expert disclosures were due 150 days before trial, which was March 3, 2017, and that Plaintiff
made his disclosures on April 3, 2017.
The Plaintiff responds [Doc. 35] that it was impossible to comply with the March 3 deadline
due to Defendants’ delay in providing discovery. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants refused
to allow an inspection of the Defendants’ motor vehicle or the electronic module data, which
necessitated a hearing with the Court. The Plaintiff argues that the Court ordered the Defendants
to fully respond to discovery and to allow the inspection. The Plaintiff explains that his expert
completed the inspection on March 22, 2017. Further, the Plaintiff asserts that any treating medical
experts listed by the Plaintiff were known to the Defendants because they were listed in the medical
records.

2

In Kniceley et al., v. Osborne, No. 3:16-cv-24, Steven Kniceley and Tara Kniceley are proceeding pro se.
They did not attend the hearing.
2

The Court finds the Defendants’ Objection [Doc. 34] not well-taken. As the Plaintiff has
argued, the Defendants did not respond to discovery in a timely fashion and the inspection of the
vehicle and electronic module data did not occur until March 22, 2017, after the deadline for expert
disclosures.

Under the circumstances, the Court finds that the Defendants have not been

prejudiced. Accordingly, the Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiff’s Expert Witness Disclosure
[Doc. 34] is DENIED.
With respect to the Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and Extend Discovery Deadline
[Doc. 38], the Plaintiff requests until July 3, 2017, to complete discovery in this case. The Motion
states that the parties agree that discovery in this case cannot be completed by May 3, 2017, which
is the current discovery deadline. At the hearing, the Defendants stated that they do not object to
the Plaintiff’s request. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and
Extend Discovery Deadline [Doc. 38] is well-taken, and it is GRANTED. The deadline to
complete all discovery shall be extended to July 3, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

United States Magistrate Judge

3