Humphrey v. Justo

Filing 17

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: The Jury Trial is set for 9/15/2015 at 9:00 AM, the Pretrial Conference is set for 8/24/2015 at 10:00 AM, and a Telephone Conference is set for 12/15/2014 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Joe Brown. Discovery due by 3 /21/2015. Dispositive Motions due by 4/30/2015. Counsel should read the order in its entirety for all other deadlines and information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 8/4/2014. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
TYRONE HUMPHREY and
BRANDI HUMPHREY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs
v.
DAVID JUSTO and BROWN
COLUMBUS FREIGHT, LLC,
Defendants

No. 3:14-1187
Judge Nixon/Brown
Jury Demand

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Pursuant to Local Rule 16.01(d)(2), the following Initial Case Management Plan is
adopted.
I.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This is an action for common law negligence and negligence per se arising under T.C.A.

§§ 55-8-103, 55-8-136 and 55-10-205. The parties agree that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this action based on the parties’ diversity and that venue is proper pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1446.
II.

PLAINTIFF'S THEORY OF THE CASE
Tyrone Humphrey was a passenger in an automobile driven by his wife Brandi

Humphrey (“Mrs. Humphrey”), and both sustained physical and emotional injuries when the 18wheeler truck driven by Defendant Justo collided with Mrs. Humphrey’s automobile. The
incident occurred on August 8, 2013 in Nashville, Tennessee.
Defendant Justo was cited at the scene for driving on a suspended driver’s license and for
lack of due care in connection with his failed attempt to negotiate the curve causing him to sideswipe Plaintiffs' vehicle and force it off the road. Specifically, the police report issued at that
1 

time states, in relevant part, that Defendant Justo’s “was going too fast for the curve and weather
conditions [it was raining], [Defendant Justo’s vehicle] left his lane of travel, went through the
gore and struck [Plaintiffs' vehicle]. [Plaintiffs' vehicle] was forced into a guardrail.”
Plaintiffs' damages are the result of Defendant Justo’s violation of common law
negligence and negligence per se arising under T.C.A. §§ 55-8-103, 55-8-136 and 55-10-205.
III.

DEFENDANTS' THEORY OF THE CASE
A.

Defendant David Justo

Defendant David Justo denies Plaintiffs' allegations of fault as stated in his complaint.
Defendant denies Plaintiffs sustained injuries and damages to the extent alleged in the
Complaint.
B.

Defendant Brown Columbus Freight, LLC

This Defendant has not yet been officially served. However, the present parties anticipate
that Brown Columbus Freight, LLC will deny liabilities and responsibility for the actions of the
Defendant Justo.
IV.

STATUS OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED
A.

Resolved

1.

Jurisdiction and venue.

B.

Disputed
1.

Liability of Defendant Justo and Defendant Brown Columbus Freight,

2.

Whether Plaintiffs can establish physical damages;

3.

Whether Plaintiffs can establish emotional damages; and,

4.

Whether Plaintiffs can establish damage to his vehicle.

LLC.

V.

NEED FOR OTHER CLAIMS OR SPECIAL ISSUES UNDER F.R.C.P. 13-15, 1721 AND 23.
2 

A.

Plaintiffs

The initial case management conference scheduled in connection with the companion
case filed by Plaintiff’s wife, Brandi Humphrey, was held before United States Magistrate Judge
Juliet Griffin on June 30, 2014. There it was acknowledged by Defendant’s counsel, James T.
Feeney, Esq., that Defendant Justo was an agent of Columbus Freight LLC of 1703 Challock
Way, High Point, North Carolina 27260, and acting on said principal’s business and within the
scope of his employment with said principal at the time the subject injury-causing incident.
Attorney Feeney stated further that he was not in a position to accept service of process for
Columbus Freight LLC; thus, Plaintiff has initiated service of process of the complaint and
summons on that entity.
Counsel for the parties in this and the Brandi Humphrey v. David Justo case as aforecited
further agreed with Judge Griffin that (a) per the latter’s consultation with Magistrate Judge Joe
Brown, this instant case would be reassigned to that judge; (b) the Plaintiff Brandi Humphrey, by
and through her counsel as undersigned, would file a motion to consolidate her case into this
case numbered 3-14-1187, indicating that the defendant has no opposition to the consolidation;
and, (c) assuming the cases were consolidated, Plaintiff Brandi Humphrey, would, as promptly
as possible file an amended consolidated complaint, naming Columbus Freight LLC as an
additional defendant.
In fact, a consolidated complaint titled “Second Amended Complaint” naming both
Tyrone Humphrey and Brandi Humphrey as plaintiffs, and David Justo and Columbus Freight
LLC as defendants has been filed in this Civil Case No. 3-14-1187. Further, service of process
has been initiated on Columbus Freight LLC through its registered agent.
VI.

WITNESSES
A.

Plaintiffs
3 

Subject to supplementation as this case proceeds, Plaintiffs anticipate calling the
following individuals as witnesses in this case:
1.

Plaintiff Tyrone Humphrey;

2.

Brandi Humphrey (driver of the vehicle in which Plaintiff Tyrone Humphrey was

injured); and,
3.

Defendant David Justo.

B.

Defendants

None. The list will be supplemented in a timely manner.
VII.

INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND STAGING OF DISCOVERY
A.

Initial Disclosures

The parties agree to exchange Rule 26 initial disclosures no later than July 30, 2014; said
initial disclosures may be supplemented as necessary.
B.

Discovery

All discovery shall be completed by the close of business on March 31, 2015. No
motions related to discovery disputes shall be filed prior to the parties making a good faith effort
to resolve the discovery issue(s). Prior to filing any discovery-related motion, the parties shall
schedule and conduct a telephone conference with Magistrate Judge Brown. The parties agree
that the counsel requesting the conference shall consult with opposing counsel as to his/her
availability prior to setting a time certain with the Court.
There shall be no stay of discovery pending disposition of any motions.
By close of business day on September 15, 2014, Plaintiffs shall declare to all
Defendants named in this action (not file with the Court), the identity of their expert witnesses
and provide all information as specified in Rule 26(a)(2)(B).

4 

By close of business day on November 30, 2014, Defendants Justo and Columbus
Freight LLC, shall declare to Plaintiffs, the identity of their expert witnesses and provide all
information as specified in Rule 26(a)(2)(B).
Any supplements to expert reports shall be filed by the close of business on or before
December 31, 2014. Depositions of experts will be completed by February 27, 2015.
Local Rule 39.01(c)(6)(c) (effective April 19, 2012) relating to expert witnesses shall
apply in this action, and strict compliance is required.
The parties are discussing how to conduct electronic discovery.
VIII. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
All dispositive motions shall be filed by the close of business on April 30, 2015.
Responses to dispositive motions shall be filed within 21 days after service. Briefs shall not
exceed 25 pages without leave of Court. Optional replies, limited to five pages, shall be filed
within 14 days after service of the response. If dispositive motions are filed early, the response
and reply dates are moved up accordingly.
IX.

OTHER DEADLINES
A.

Motions to Amend or Join Parties

Any motion to amend the pleadings or join parties shall be filed in sufficient time to
permit any discovery necessary because of the proposed amendment to be obtained within the
time for discovery. No amendments will be allowed if to do so will result in a delay in the
disposition of the action by requiring an extension of the discovery deadline.
X.

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Pursuant to Local Rule 16.02(d), the parties agree and request referral to a settlement

conference or arbitration. The settlement conference or arbitration shall be completed by March
30, 2015. The parties shall inform the Court of the date of settlement conference or arbitration
5 

when scheduled. Counsel and parties will submit evaluations to the Court within 14 days of the
conclusion of the settlement conference or arbitration.
XI.

SUBSEQUENT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES
A telephone conference with Magistrate Judge Brown to discuss case progress and

alternative dispute resolution is set for December 15, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. To participate in the
conference call, parties will call 615-695-2851 at the scheduled time. A joint statement of any
unresolved issues must be submitted at least one full business day prior to the conference call.
XII.

CONSENT TO TRIAL BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The parties are considering consent to trial before a Magistrate Judge. To complete this

action, the parties will need to file a consent form signed by all parties and the form must be
approved by the District Judge.
XIII. TARGET TRIAL DATE AND ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF TRIAL
Subject to the submission of the consent form and approval by the District Judge, a trial before
the undersigned is set for September 15, 2015, with a final pretrial conference to be conducted on
August 24, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., Courtroom 783. The parties estimate that this jury trial will last

approximately three days. A separate order will be issued later setting out the requirements for
the trial and final pretrial conference. In the event a consent form is not completed, the
Magistrate Judge will request a trial date from Judge Nixon.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ Joe B. Brown
Joe B. Brown
United States Magistrate Judge

6