Mansfield v. The Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.

Filing 28

SECOND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER: Motion to Amend Pleadings due by 10/28/2013. Discovery due by 4/18/2014. Dispositive Motions due by 6/13/2014. Jury Trial set for 10/21/2014 before District Judge Todd J. Campbell. Pretrial Conference set for 10/10/2014 at 9:00 AM before District Judge Todd J. Campbell. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 10/21/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JOSEPH F. MANSFIELD,
Plaintiff
v.
THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:13-0228
Judge Campbell/Brown
Jury Demand

SECOND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER
Pursuant to Local Rule 16.01(d)(2), the following Second Case Management Plan
is adopted.
A.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE: Plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction of this Court is

based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), in that the parties are citizens of
different states and the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper in this Court because the acts of alleged negligence complained
of in this action occurred in this judicial district. Defendant denies that jurisdiction is proper
because the amount legitimately in controversy in this case does not exceed $75,000.00.
B.

BRIEF THEORIES OF THE PARTIES:
1.

PLAINTIFF JOSEPH F. MANSFIELD. On April 8, 2012, Plaintiff Joe

Mansfield was a customer when he entered the Home Depot store located at 8101 Moore’s Lane in
Brentwood, Tennessee to purchase a power washer. Shortly after he entered the store, a large
wooden board approximately 16 feet in length struck him on his shoulders and neck. The board was
propped up near the entrance of the store.

After he was struck, a store manager and other

1

employees of Home Depot came to check on his condition. One of the managers told Mr. Mansfield
that he had instructed the store employees to not prop up large boards near the entrance because
“someone was going to get hurt.”
Mr. Mansfield was injured as a result of the negligence of Home Depot in allowing the board
to remain propped up near the store entrance, and which created a dangerous condition.

Mr.

Mansfield was initially treated by Clyde Heflin, Jr., M.D., who referred him to Allen F. Anderson,
M.D., for the right shoulder. Dr. Allen performed arthroscopic surgery to repair a large rotator cuff
tear in the right shoulder on August 22, 2012. Mr. Mansfield had extensive physical therapy as a
result of the shoulder injury. In addition, Edward Mackey, M.D. performed a cervical laminectomy
in September 2013. Mr. Mansfield has incurred a significant amount of medical expenses as a result
of the injuries. It is believed Mr. Mansfield will retain some degree of permanent impairment,
restrictions and limitations as a result of the injuries. Mr. Mansfield also makes a claim for pain and
suffering.
2.

DEFENDANT THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.: On April 8, 2012,

wind blew a piece of lightweight wood moulding into Plaintiff Joe Mansfield’s shoulder near the
entrance of the Home Depot store located at 8101 Moore’s Lane in Brentwood, Tennessee.
Home Depot employees offered to render aid to Plaintiff, who did not claim or appear to be in
significant pain and did not request medical attention. Plaintiff resumed his shopping trip shortly
thereafter.
Defendant denies any liability to Plaintiff in any amount. Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and
claimed damages were not proximately caused by Defendant or Defendant’s employees, agents
or representatives. Neither Defendant, nor its employees, agents, or representatives were

2

negligent, and may not be held liable for Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and claimed damages. To
the extent that Plaintiff is found to be 50% at fault or greater, Plaintiff shall have no recovery.
To the extend that Plaintiff is found 49% at fault or less, any award to Plaintiff should be
reduced accordingly.
C.

ISSUES RESOLVED: None.

D.

ISSUES STILL IN DISPUTE: Jurisdiction, liability and damages.

E.

INITIAL DISCLOSURES: The parties have exchanged initial disclosures pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1).
F.

DISCOVERY: The parties shall complete all written discovery and depose all fact

witnesses on or before Friday, April 18, 2014. No motions concerning discovery are to be filed
until after the parties have conferred in good faith, and conducted a telephone conference with the
Magistrate Judge. The counsel requesting the conference call shall check with opposing counsel as
to their availability before setting a time certain with the Magistrate Judge. Discovery motions are
to be filed in accordance with the practice of the Magistrate Judge who will resolve any dispute.
G.

MOTIONS TO AMEND: Plaintiff intends to file a motion to amend the Complaint

on or before Monday, October 28, 2013.
H.

DISCLOSURE OF EXPERTS:
1.

The party having the burden of proof on any issue shall disclose any expert

witnesses on or before February 1, 2014.
2.

The opposing party shall disclose any expert witnesses on or before March

4, 2014.
I.

DEPOSITION OF EXPERT WITNESSES: The parties shall complete depositions

of expert witnesses by May 26, 2014.
3

J.

JOINT MEDIATION REPORT: The parties shall submit a joint mediation report

on or before May 29, 2014. A telephone conference with Magistrate Judge Brown to discuss
alternative dispute resolution and case progress is set for June 2, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. To
participate in the conference call, parties will call [phone] at the scheduled time.
K.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS: The parties shall file all dispositive motions on or

before June 13, 2014. Responses to dispositive motions shall be filed within 28 days after service.
Briefs shall not exceed 25 pages without leave of Court. Optional replies, limited to five pages,
shall be filed within seven days after service of the response. If dispositive motions are filed early,
the response and reply dates are moved up accordingly.
L.

ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY: The parties have reached agreements on how to

conduct electronic discovery. Thus, the default standard contained in Administrative Order No. 174
need not apply to this case.
M.

ESTIMATED TRIAL TIME: The parties expect the trial to last approximately two

to three days. This action is set for jury trial on Tuesday, October 21, 2014 (Docket Entry No. 21).
A pretrial conference shall be heard on Friday, October 10, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. before Judge
Campbell. Id.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

4