Filed: May 17, 2019
Latest Update: May 17, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE Re: Dkt. No. 119 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . On April 24, 2019, the Court conducted a telephone conference in which it heard the positions of the parties and set a trial date of December 2, 2019. Dkt. Nos. 111, 112. On May 10, 2019, defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Bayer") filed a motion to continue the trial date and modify the scheduling order. Dkt. No. 119. In its motion, defendant states that it was not unti
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE Re: Dkt. No. 119 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . On April 24, 2019, the Court conducted a telephone conference in which it heard the positions of the parties and set a trial date of December 2, 2019. Dkt. Nos. 111, 112. On May 10, 2019, defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Bayer") filed a motion to continue the trial date and modify the scheduling order. Dkt. No. 119. In its motion, defendant states that it was not until..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE
Re: Dkt. No. 119
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
On April 24, 2019, the Court conducted a telephone conference in which it heard the positions of the parties and set a trial date of December 2, 2019. Dkt. Nos. 111, 112. On May 10, 2019, defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Bayer") filed a motion to continue the trial date and modify the scheduling order. Dkt. No. 119. In its motion, defendant states that it was not until after the Court set the trial date that Bayer's counsel "learned that the current trial date conflicts with another trial in Kentucky in which Bayer is also the defendant." Id. at 3. That trial has been set for over a year and is set to begin the same day as this one. Id. Four of Bayer's experts are expected to testify in both actions. Id. Bayer is represented by a different law firm in that case. Dkt. No. 119-1, Swift Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7. Defendant requests, as it did at the April 24 telephone conference, that the Court set the trial date in February 2020.
The Court finds that further briefing on this motion would not be an efficient use of the parties' resources and hereby issues this Order DENYING defendant's motion. The Court finds no good cause to modify the scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). This case has been pending for nearly ten years. It was transferred back to this Court from the MDL transferee court in December 2018. The Court will not delay this case further by continuing the trial date. At the last telephone conference, the Court informed the parties of its unavailability to try the case in February 2020. Thus, what defendant now requests would result in at least a three-month delay of the current trial date on the basis of a conflict in another case that its counsel could have discovered a year ago.
The Court is available to try this case beginning the weeks of November 18, November 25, and December 2, 2019. The Court reiterates that it is unavailable to try the case in February 2020. Absent a stipulation from the parties that they wish to begin the trial on November 18 or 25, 2019, the current trial date of December 2, 2019, remains on calendar.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
