Masephol, Richard v. 3M Company et al

Filing 150

ORDER granting 119 Motion to Establish a Protocol and Procedure for the Collection of Medical, Healthcare, Employment, Bankruptcy Trusts and Other Relevant Records; accepting 136 Stipulation to Extend Defendants' Expert Deadline; granting in part and denying in part 144 Motion to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 3/20/2015. (kwf) Modified on 3/23/2015 (kwf).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
VIRGINIA PRUST, etc.

14-cv-143-wmc

Plaintiff,
v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
JANET PECHER, etc.,

14-cv-147-wmc

Plaintiff,
v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
ROGER SEEHAFER,

14-cv-161-wmc

Plaintiff,
v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, et al.
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
RICHARD MASEPHOL,

14-cv-186-wmc

Plaintiff,
v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
WESLEY SYDOW, et al.

14-cv-219-wmc

Plaintiffs,
v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
MILTON BOYER, et al.,

14-cv-286-wmc

Plaintiffs,
v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

On M arch 20, 2015, the court held a consolidated telephonic motion hearing in the six cases
captioned above. All parties in all cases were represented by counsel. The court ruled on the pending
discovery-related motions in the manner and for the reasons stated at the hearing, and provided the court’s
observations, predictions and directions on how these cases will move forward. This order briefly
commemorates where we landed. It does not alter or supersede anything the court said during the hearing.

W eyerhaeuser’s motions to establish a protocol and procedure for records collection
These are the docket numbers of this motion in each of the six cases that were part of the motion
hearing:
Prust, 14-cv-143:

Dkt. 88

Pecher, 14-cv-147:

Dkt. 84

Seehafer, 14-cv-161:

Dkt. 104

M asephol, 14-cv-186:

Dkt. 119

Sydow, 14-cv-219:

Dkt. 219

Boyer, 14-cv-286:

Dkt. 130

The court granted each of these motions and has entered a signed copy of defendant’s proposed draft
order in each case. This should help speed up defendants’ receipt of relevant information.

Stipulation To M arch 23, 2015 disclosure of W eyerhaeuser’s experts
The court accepted this stipulation, which was filed in four of the six cases that were part of the
hearing:
Seehafer, 14-cv-161:

Dkt. 114

M asephol, 14-cv-186:

Dkt. 136

Sydow, 14-cv-219:

Dkt. 115

Boyer, 14-cv-286:

Dkt. 141

The court is entering text-only orders accepting this same stipulation in the two related cases that
were not called as part of the M arch 20, 2015 telephonic motion hearing (Jacobs, 12-cv-899, dkt. 56, and
Heckel, 13-cv-459, dkt. 53).

W eyerhaeuser’s m otions to amend case managem ent schedule.
W eyerhaeuser filed this motion in the two cases in which it contends it does not have enough
discovery from plaintiffs to submit expert reports by M arch 23, 2015, namely Prust, 14-cv-143 (dkt. 101)
and Pecher, 14-cv-147 (dkt. 94). 3M joined both of these motions (dkt. 101 in Prust, dkt. 97 in Pecher),

2

and each plaintiff filed a response objecting to the court revising the schedules in all of the cases when only
two had disclosure problems.
The court granted both motions in principle in the manner and for the reasons stated at the
hearing. The court noted that several different threads are dangling in these cases, which means that we
will have to alter at least some parts of the joint schedule and perhaps re-arrange the order of the trials.
The court needs to issue rulings on the pending substantive motions. Plaintiffs need to fulfill all of their
Rule 26(a)(1) obligations forthwith. The court’s order establishing a scheduling protocol needs to hit the
docket, which will provide defendants more efficient access to records and other documents that have not
been provided in discovery. In light of all this, the court moved the deadline to file summary judgment
motions to M ay 1, 2015 and will move this deadline again if the ends of justice so require. At this time,
the court intends to keep all of the trial dates set in these cases. It will be up to all parties–plaintiffs as well
as defendants–to keep the court timely apprised of what’s going on in these lawsuits so that the court can
make the necessary adjustments to the schedule as we move forward.

Plaintiffs’ m otions to am end scheduling order
Each plaintiff filed a copy of the same motion under these docket numbers:
Prust, 14-cv-143:

Dkt. 107

Pecher, 14-cv-147:

Dkt. 103

Seehafer, 14-cv-161:

Dkt. 115

M asephol, 14-cv-186:

Dkt. 144

Sydow, 14-cv-219:

Dkt. 123

Boyer, 14-cv-286:

Dkt. 149

In their motions, plaintiffs suggested that the court set specific dates for it to provide its Rule
26(a)(1) disclosures and otherwise move back some of the other dates and deadlines in some of the cases
to correspond more closely to the later trial dates in those cases.
The court granted in part and denied in part each plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling
order in this set of cases. As discussed at the hearing, the court expected all parties already to have
provided all material covered by Rule 26(a)(1) by virtue of the deadlines set in the rule. Those deadlines
passed almost a year ago. To the extent this has not been done, it must be done forthwith.
As noted in the previous section, the court m oved the summary judgment motion deadline one
month and will be flexible about changing other dates and deadlines as required in the interests of justice.
The court also noted, however, that all parties must diligently attend to their discovery and disclosure
obligations in these cases because if they do not, the court will not hesitate to prevent prejudice to the

3

other parties in whatever fashion justice requires. Every possible sanction remains on the table to remedy
discovery and disclosure obligations, including dismissal of claims, theories of liability, defenses and entire
lawsuits as the court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances. That being so, the court will
not look for trouble. The court expects that every party and every lawyer will do what it takes to get these
cases back up to speed and then to move forward without delay so that we can retain as much of the
existing schedule as possible.

If not, there will be consequences.

Entered this 20 th day of M arch, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
M agistrate Judge

4