Patient A v. Vermont Agency of Human Services et al

Filing 68

OPINION AND ORDER granting 59 MOTION to Extend Expert Discovery Deadlines, defering 64 MOTION to Deny or Defer Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford on 8/18/2015. (esb)

U.S. DISTRIcT
O:STFHCT r)F \~
UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

PATIENT A,
Plaintiff,
v.
VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN
SERVICES, VERMONT DEPARTMENT
OF MENTAL HEALTH, PAUL DUPRE,
COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF
MENTAL HEALTH, in his individual and
official capacity, CORRECT CARE
SOLUTIONS, VERMONT DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, and ANDREW
PALLITO, COMMISSIONER OF
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, in his
individual and official capacity,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5: 14-cv-000206

OPINION AND ORDER RE:

DEFENDANT CCS'S MOTION TO EXTEND EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINE

AND MOTION TO DENY OR DEFER PLAINTIFF'S PARTIAL MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docs. 59, 64)

Plaintiff Patient A alleges various causes of action against defendants Vermont

AgenC~

of Human Services ("AHS"); Vermont Department of Mental Health ("DMH"); Paul Dupre,
Commissioner ofDMH; Correct Care Solutions ("CCS"); Vermont Department of Correction
("DOC"); and Andrew Pallito, Commissioner of DOC, relating to Patient A's incarceration fr m
August 13,2013 through April 3,2014. CCS has moved for an extension of the expert-relate
discovery deadlines and for a denial or deferment of Patient A's summary judgment motion
because expert discovery is ongoing.
Because these motions concern purely procedural issues the court need not discuss
background facts. Patient A's only claim against CCS is one of medical malpractice. (Doc. liat
19.) On March 17,2015, the court issued a discovery scheduling order. (Doc. 35.) The deadline
1

for deposing Patient A's expert witness was set for August 1,2015. The deadline for submittiq.g
expert witness reports was set for September 1. The deadline for deposing CCS' s expert witness
was set for October 15.
On June 5, 2015, CCS moved for summary judgment on the medical malpractice claiml
(Doc. 47.) Patient A filed both an opposition to CCS's motion as well as its own motion for
summary judgment on the medical malpractice claim on July 13. By July 31, this court had n t
yet set a hearing date for CCS' s motion. (The hearing for both summary judgment motions,
scheduled for September 10, was set on August 4.) CCS has not yet deposed Patient A's expe
witness.
I.

CCS's Motion to Extend Expert Discovery Deadlines
On July 31, CCS moved to extend the expert discovery deadlines so that they fall after

this court rules on CCS's summary judgment motion. Patient A opposes CCS's motion to ext nd
the expert discovery deadlines because "[t]here are no extraordinary circumstances or other go d
cause that would support permitting the discovery in this case to be delayed further."
4.)
i

A scheduling order may be modified "only for good cause and with the judge's consenf'
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). "The Rule 16(b)(4) 'good cause' inquiry is primarily focused upon tHe
diligence of the movant in attempting to comply with the existing scheduling order and the
reasons advanced as justifYing that order's amendment." Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Traditfg

(Ireland), Ltd. v. Coventry First LLC, 282 F.R.D. 76, 79 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing Kassner v.

2n~

Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229,244 (2d Cir. 2007». The court also considers any

I

prejudice that the schedule modification may impose on other parties. Kassner, 496 F.3d at 24k.
A discovery deadline is prejudicial if it "would require the opponent to expend significant
additional resources to conduct discovery and prepare for trial or significantly delay the
resolution of the dispute." Ruotolo v. City ofNew York, 514 F.3d 184, 192 (2d Cir. 2008).
This case presents the unusual circumstance of a plaintiff filing for summary judgment n
a medical malpractice claim before completion of expert-witness-related discovery. Resolutio
ofCCS's motion-which argues that Patient A identified the wrong standard of care-does no
require expert witness testimony. CCS filed its summary judgment motion well before the firs
2

expert discovery deadline. On August 4, the court set a hearing on the motion to take place

01

September 10. It is not for lack of diligence that CCS has yet to depose Patient A's expert, bu~
because CCS is awaiting resolution of its motion which may eliminate the need for any furthet
expert-related discovery.
The proposed deadlines extension does not prejudice Patient A. Patient A would not
need to expend any additional resources. His only inconvenience is the short delay the modifi~d
schedule would impose on the litigation. The court concludes that CCS has shown good caus
for its request to extend the expert discovery deadlines, and its motion is GRANTED.
The court adopts CCS' s proposed amended schedule: the deadline for CCS to depose
Patient A's expert will be one month following the issuance of the court's ruling on CCS's
pending motion for summary judgment. The deadline for CCS to disclose its expert will be

0

months following the ruling, and the deadline for Patient A to depose CCS's expert witness w 11
be three and one-half months following the ruling.
II.

CCS's Motion to Deny or Defer Patient A's Partial Motion for Summary

Judgment

On August 7, 2015, CCS moved the court to either deny without prejudice or defer
resolution of Patient A's summary judgment motion until after its own motion has been resol
(Doc. 64.) Patient A opposes CCS's motion on the grounds that CCS does not need any
additional discovery in order to effectively oppose Patient A's summary judgment motion. (

c.

65 at 3.) However, in order to effectively oppose Patient A's motion, CCS will need to depos
Patient A's expert witness in addition to proffering expert witness testimony ofits own. CCS
has shown by an affidavit from counsel that it "cannot present facts essential to justify its
opposition" to Patient A's motion because it has not deposed Patient A's expert witness and
because it has not yet obtained an expert witness of its own. (Doc. 64-1.) These failures are
excused because Patient A filed its motion while expert discovery was ongoing. Accordingly,! it
would be premature to adjudicate Patient A's motion before CCS has had the opportunity to

I!

pursue the expert discovery needed to oppose it. 1 See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., $21
I:

al1eg~

1 Expert testimony is required to prove medical malpractice claims "[ e]xcept where the
violation of the standard of care is so apparent that it can be understood by a layperson without
the aid of medical experts." Provost v. Fletcher Allen Health Care, Inc., 890 A.2d 97, 101 (Vt.

3

t

F.3d 292,303 (2d Cir. 2003) ("The nonmoving party must have had the opportunity to

discov~r

information that is essential to his opposition to the motion for summary judgment." (quoting

I

Trebor Sportswear Co. v. The Ltd. Stores, Inc., 865 F.2d 506, 511 (2d Cir. 1989)). CCS's

i

motion to deny or defer Patient A's partial motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Thel
court defers adjudication of Patient A's motion until the close of expert discovery, which in

tutu

is postponed until after resolution ofCCS's pending summary judgment motion.

III.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, CCS's motion to extend expert discovery deadlines and

CCS's motion to deny or defer Patient A's partial motion for summary judgment are

•.
I

GRANTED. The court defers adjudieation of Patient A's partial motion for summary judgme1)t.
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this 18th day of August, 2015.

Geo ey W. Crawford, Judge
United States District Court

2005). Patient A's argument that CCS needs no additional discovery in order to oppose
A's motion because this is one of the rare cases not requiring expert testimony (Doc. 65 at 4-5)lis
unpersuasive and belied by the fact that Patient A did procure an expert witness in support ofhlS
malpractice claim.
.

!

4

I