United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
WAYLAND COLLINS, et al.
v.
JOHN C. BENTON, et al.
SECTION:
“G” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN CHIEF JUDGE
Before
the Court is Plaintiffs Wayland Collins, Candy Kelly, and
Alvin Polk's (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
“First Motion for Extension of Deadline for Expert
Reports.”[1] In the motion, Plaintiffs request that
this Court extend Plaintiffs' deadline to disclose their
expert reports to Defendants Mark Ingle, Q & M Motor
Transports, and Northland Insurance Company (collectively,
“Defendants”) from October 10, 2019 to November
10, 2019.[2] Having considered the motion, the
memorandum in support and in opposition, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court will deny the motion.
I.
Background
On
August 7, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against
Defendants in this Court, seeking recovery for injuries and
property damages Plaintiffs allegedly sustained in an
automobile accident.[3] According to the Complaint, on August 9,
2017, Plaintiff Wayland Collins was operating a vehicle on
Interstate 10 and, while exiting onto Interstate 510,
collided with an 18- wheeler driven by Defendant Mark
Ingle.[4] Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Mark
Ingle was turning onto Interstate 510 and negligently
misjudged his clearance, resulting in the motor vehicle
incident at issue.[5] Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant
Mark Ingle was cited for an “improper lane
change.”[6] Plaintiffs bring a negligence claim
against Defendant Mark Ingle and Defendant Q & M
Transport, who is allegedly Defendant Mark Ingle's
principal under the doctrine of respondeat
superior.[7] Plaintiffs also bring claims against
Defendant Northland Insurance Company, who purportedly
insured the 18-wheeler operated by Defendant Mark
Ingle.[8]
On
November 13, 2018, the Court issued a Scheduling Order
setting this case for trial on October 21,
2019.[9] On June 11, 2019, approximately 10 months
after the filing of the Complaint, all parties jointly moved
for a continuance of the October 21, 2019 trial date and
accompanying deadlines because all of the Plaintiffs had
recently undergone surgery and were in the process of being
treated by several physicians.[10] On June 17, 2019, this Court
granted the parties' request because Plaintiffs appeared
to not have reached maximum medical recovery at that
time.[11]Thereafter, the Court issued a new
Scheduling Order setting this case for trial on January 8,
2020.[12] The Scheduling Order set October 10,
2019 as the deadline for Plaintiffs to disclose their expert
reports, and November 8, 2019 as the deadline for Defendants
to disclose their expert reports.[13] The Scheduling Order
further provides that any “[m]otions regarding the
admissibility of expert testimony (Daubert motions)
shall be filed and served in sufficient time to permit
hearing thereon no later than December 4,
2019.”[14]
On
October 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion
requesting an extension of Plaintiffs' October 10, 2019
expert report deadline.[15] On October 28, 2019, Defendants filed
an opposition to the instant motion.[16] On November 1, 2019,
Plaintiffs filed a reply brief in further support of the
instant motion.[17]
II.
Parties' Arguments
A.
Plaintiff's Arguments in Support of the
Motion
In the
instant motion, Plaintiffs seek an extension of time to have
Lee Jackson and Larry Cole, purported experts on the
Department of Transportation Regulations and the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Act Rules and Regulations, complete
their expert reports.[18] Plaintiffs argue that good cause
exists to extend their October 10, 2019 expert report
deadline because the deposition transcripts of Defendants
Mark Ingle and Q & M Motor Transports were not provided
to Plaintiffs' counsel as of October 16, 2019,
[19]
and those deposition transcripts are necessary for
Plaintiffs' experts to complete their findings and
prepare their reports.[20] Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants
were not made available for depositions until October 1,
2019, and the court reporter had not completed the deposition
transcripts as of October 16, 2019, which is after the
October 10, 2019 expert report deadline.[21] Plaintiffs
also argue that Plaintiffs are “not asking for an
unfettered deadline to bring in other experts, ” but
instead are merely requesting the “Court grant an
extension for the sole purpose of bringing in Lee Jackson and
Larry Cole as qualified experts.”[22]
B.
Defendants' Arguments in Opposition of the
Motion
In
opposition, Defendants first note that Plaintiffs seek an
extension of the October 10, 2019 expert report deadline
pursuant to a motion that was filed after Plaintiffs'
expert report deadline passed.[23] Defendants also contend that
Plaintiffs seek to submit a report from Larry Cole, who was
not identified as an expert by Plaintiffs until after the
October 10, 2019 deadline.[24]
Next,
Defendants address Plaintiffs' implication that the delay
was caused by Defendants Mark Ingle and Q & M Motor
Transports.[25] Defendants contend that
“Plaintiffs initially requested available dates for the
corporate deposition of Q&M Motor Transports and of Mark
Ingle on May 31, 2019.”[26] In response, Defendants Mark
Ingle and Q & M Motor Transports informed Plaintiffs'
counsel that they were instead available on June 27,
2019.[27] According to Defendants, Plaintiffs next
request to schedule the depositions of Mark Ingle and Q &
M Motor Transports provided the dates of September 30, 2019,
October 1, 2019, and October 2, 2019.[28] Defendants
contend that they promptly selected the October 1, 2019 date
and subsequently informed Plaintiffs'
counsel.[29]
Finally,
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' instant request to
continue the deadline for disclosure of expert reports to
November 10, 2019 would affect other deadlines in this
case.[30]Defendants point out that Defendants'
expert report deadline is November 8, 2019.[31] Defendants
also point out that Defendants “will have only six
business days to take the depositions of plaintiffs' two
additional experts, obtain the transcripts of these
depositions, and prepare Daubert Motions before the
November 19, 2019 deadline to do so.”[32] Considering
those deadline complications, Defendants request that this
Court deny Plaintiffs' instant motion to extend
Plaintiffs' expert report deadline.[33] Yet, if this
Court grants Plaintiffs' instant motion, Defendants
request this Court also adjust the remaining expert deadline
for the Defendants' expert reports and the deadline to
file Daubert motions.[34]
C.
Plaintiff's Arguments in Further Support of the
Motion
In
reply, Plaintiffs further elaborate on Defendants'
alleged delays in conducting the depositions of Defendants
Mark Ingle and Q & M Motor Transport.[35] Plaintiffs
argue that Defendants' counsel was unavailable for
“a big portion of July with other matters for another
trial” and “traveled in September for weeks [in]
Europe.”[36]
Next,
Plaintiffs propose new dates for numerous deadlines in this
Court's Scheduling Order, including the deadlines for
discovery, Daubert motions, motions in limine, the
final pretrial conference, and other matters.[37] Plaintiff
asserts that Defendants are “agreeable to all dates
except for the new expert report dates for plaintiff,
contingent on the court's ruling for this
extension.”[38]
III.
Legal Standard
Federal
district courts have the inherent power to enforce their
scheduling orders.[39] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)
provides that a scheduling order “may be modified only
for good cause and with the judge's
consent.”[40] “The good cause standard requires
the ‘party seeking relief to show that the deadlines
cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party
needing the extension.'”[41] Courts employ a
four-prong analysis to determine whether good cause exists
for an extension: “(1) the explanation for the failure
to [designate the experts and produce reports]; (2) the
importance of the [testimony]; (3) potential prejudice in
allowing the [testimony]; and (4) the availability of a
continuance to cure such prejudice.”[42] In deciding
whether to grant a continuance, the Court's
“judgment range is exceedingly wide, ” for it
“must consider not only the facts of the particular
case but also all of the demands on counsel's time and
the court's.”[43]Simply put, whether to grant or deny a
continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial
court.[44]
IV.
Analysis
Considering
the first factor of the “good cause” analysis,
Plaintiffs do not provide a sufficient explanation for their
inability to provide their expert reports to Defendants by
October 10, 2019. Plaintiffs argue that Mark Ingle and Q
& M Motor Transport's deposition
transcripts-purportedly necessary for Plaintiffs' expert
reports-were not provided to Plaintiffs before the October
10, 2019 deadline. However, if Defendants' depositions
were necessary for Plaintiffs' experts to complete their
reports, Plaintiffs could have filed a motion to compel to
set the depositions for an earlier date. Instead, Plaintiffs
waited until after their expert report deadline passed to
request an extension. Simply put, Plaintiffs have not been
diligent in meeting the deadlines in this Court's
Scheduling Order.
Second,
Plaintiffs fail to explain why Larry Cole and Lee
Jackson's expert reports are important in Plaintiffs'
case. Indeed, Plaintiffs never even mention the importance of
Larry Cole ...