Filed: Sep. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART STIPULATION TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE (Doc. 27) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . The parties have stipulated to amend the case schedule to extend some of the. It appears, in part, the request is due to the plaintiff's failure to earlier disclose that she underwent "neck surgery." (Doc. 27 at 2-4) From the stipulation, it appears that plaintiff's Rule 26 initial disclosures did not alert the defendants of this fact, though the supplemental disclosures did. I
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART STIPULATION TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE (Doc. 27) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . The parties have stipulated to amend the case schedule to extend some of the. It appears, in part, the request is due to the plaintiff's failure to earlier disclose that she underwent "neck surgery." (Doc. 27 at 2-4) From the stipulation, it appears that plaintiff's Rule 26 initial disclosures did not alert the defendants of this fact, though the supplemental disclosures did. Id..
More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART STIPULATION TO AMEND THE CASE SCHEDULE (Doc. 27)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
The parties have stipulated to amend the case schedule to extend some of the. It appears, in part, the request is due to the plaintiff's failure to earlier disclose that she underwent "neck surgery." (Doc. 27 at 2-4) From the stipulation, it appears that plaintiff's Rule 26 initial disclosures did not alert the defendants of this fact, though the supplemental disclosures did. Id.
Nevertheless, soon after receiving plaintiff's initial disclosures, the defense subpoenaed the records from the surgeon which should have detailed the surgery. Thus, the Court cannot determine how the defense has been prejudiced nor have they described how they would have acted differently had the plaintiff earlier disclosed the surgery and provided the records earlier. At most, apparently, they would have taken the case more seriously and sought more discovery time when the Court scheduled the case.1 Likewise, the Court is not impressed with the attorneys' decisions to allow discovery to lag2 and then assume the Court would bail them out with amendments to the case schedule.
Though the Court will grant request to amend the case schedule, counsel SHALL cooperate to schedule the depositions and to take them immediately and to complete all needed discovery expeditiously. They are assured that the Court will be extremely unlikely to consider with favor any future requests to amend the case schedule. Thus, the Court ORDERS the case schedule amended as follows:
1. All non-expert discovery SHALL be completed no later than November 11, 2019;
2. Experts SHALL be disclosed no later than November 22, 2019 and any rebuttal experts SHALL be disclosed no later than December 13, 2019. All expert discovery SHALL be completed no later than January 24, 2020;
3. Non-dispositive and dispositive motions, if any, SHALL be filed no later than February 10, 2020 and heard no later than March 9, 2020. 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
