Filed: Aug. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIALS WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Plaintiffs assert personal injury claims against JetBlue arising out of an August 2016 turbulence incident on JetBlue Airways Flight 429 from Boston Logan International Airport to Sacramento International Airport. ( Hill Compl. ( Hill Docket No. 1); Bohnel Compl. ( Bohnel Docket No. 1).) Liability discovery in Bohnel et al v. Jetblue Airways Corporation (2:18-cv-00081-WBS-DMC) has been consolidated w
Summary: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIALS WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Plaintiffs assert personal injury claims against JetBlue arising out of an August 2016 turbulence incident on JetBlue Airways Flight 429 from Boston Logan International Airport to Sacramento International Airport. ( Hill Compl. ( Hill Docket No. 1); Bohnel Compl. ( Bohnel Docket No. 1).) Liability discovery in Bohnel et al v. Jetblue Airways Corporation (2:18-cv-00081-WBS-DMC) has been consolidated wi..
More
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIALS
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiffs assert personal injury claims against JetBlue arising out of an August 2016 turbulence incident on JetBlue Airways Flight 429 from Boston Logan International Airport to Sacramento International Airport. (Hill Compl. (Hill Docket No. 1); Bohnel Compl. (Bohnel Docket No. 1).) Liability discovery in Bohnel et al v. Jetblue Airways Corporation (2:18-cv-00081-WBS-DMC) has been consolidated with that in Hill, et al v. Jetblue Airways Corporation (No. 2:17-cv-01604-WBS-DB). (See Bohnel Docket No. 17; Hill Docket No. 26.) Both cases concern the same August 2016 turbulence incident. Presently before the court is plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Trial Date. (See Bohnel Docket No. 24; Hill Docket No. 30.)
Plaintiffs ask this court to shift the trial dates and the discovery deadlines in Hill and Bohnel forward so that they may have time to conduct discovery before trial.1 Defendant does not object to the continuance of the trial dates in Hill and Bohnel.2 (See Response to Pl.'s Mot. to Continue Trial at 2 (Bohnel Docket No. 26; Hill Docket No. 32).)
In light of plaintiffs' diligence in attempting to conduct discovery in a timely manner, the need for a continuance, the lack of objection to the continuance, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs if their motion is denied, the court will grant plaintiffs' Motion to Continue Trial. (Bohnel Docket No. 24; Hill Docket No. 30.) See United States v. 2.61 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Mariposa Cty., 791 F.2d 666, 671 (9th Cir. 1985)(discussing factors to be evaluated by courts considering motions to continue trial).
Accordingly, the court modifies the scheduling orders in Hill (Docket No. 26) and Bohnel (Docket No. 17) as follows:
Fact discovery completion December 30, 2019.
Expert witness disclosure June 8, 2020
Rebuttal witness disclosure July 6, 2020
Discovery completion deadline August 3, 2020
Dispositive motion deadline September 14, 2020
Final pretrial conference October 26, 2020 at
1:30 p.m.
Hill Trial January 5, 2021 at
9:00 a.m.
Bohnell Trial January 20, 2021 at
9:00 a.m.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Continue the Trial Date (Hill Docket No. 30; Bohnel Docket No. 24) is GRANTED and the dates and deadlines of the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (Bohnel Docket No. 17; Hill Docket No. 26) are modified as described herein.
