United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. RUSHFELT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Amend
Scheduling Order and for Sanctions (ECF 141). For the reasons
below, the Court grants in part, denies in part, and defers
in part Plaintiffs motion.
Amending the Scheduling Order
parties agree that an amendment to the Scheduling Order (ECF
47), as modified by the Court (ECF 118, 157), is warranted.
In particular, the parties wish to extend the discovery
deadline, and thus the deadlines for dispositive motions and
motions challenging the admissibility of expert witnesses.
With respect to discovery, the parties agree discovery should
be extended, but they disagree as to how long and the scope
of discovery. Plaintiff wants three months of unlimited
discovery. Defendants do not proffer a time period, but
request the discovery period have limits. The parties filed
supplemental briefs, outlining what discovery remains
outstanding (ECF 159, 160, 161). After review, and for good
cause, the Court enters the following amended schedule:
• Discovery Deadline: September 29, 2017
• Dispositive Motions: October 29, 2017
• Motions Challenging Admissibility of Expert Testimony:
October 29, 2017
• Proposed Pretrial Order: October 3, 2017
• Final Pretrial Conference: October 10, 2017 at 1:15
• Jury Trial (5-6 days): July 10, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.
addition to this schedule, the Court also imposes the
following limitations on depositions. Because the parties
agree that Erin Neuberger may be deposed, the Court
authorizes her deposition, subject to the limitations agreed
to by the parties in the Scheduling Order (ECF 30)-no more
than 7 hours for each party. The parties disagree as to the
deposition of Jerry Burke, who has already been deposed on
two occasions for a total of 11 hours. Plaintiff requests
that he be allowed to depose Mr. Burke for an additional 11
hours-4 in his capacity as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness and 7 in
his capacity as an individual witness. Plaintiff argues that
Associated Wholesale Grocer (“AWG”)'s defense
counsel repeatedly and improperly objected, eating up a
significant portion of the 11 hours already taken. AWG
disagrees, argues that Plaintiff is equally culpable, and
points out that, even accounting for objection time,
Plaintiff has already deposed Mr. Burke for approximately 7
hours. AWG suggests Plaintiffs deposition of Mr. Burke be
limited to 2 hours. Defendant Clarence M. Kelley and
Associates (“CMKA”) only request that it be
allowed to depose Mr. Burke for 2 hours, which AWG does not
oppose. The Court finds as follows. Plaintiff may depose Mr.
Burke for a total of 4 hours and is free to allocate those
four hours of testimony however he wishes-i.e. individual
capacity or Rule 30(b)(6) capacity. Defendant CMKA may depose
Mr. Burke for a total of 3 hours.
with regard to the depositions, the parties are reminded of
the rules for objections as set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)
and Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Serrano, No. 11-2075-JAR,
2012 WL 28071 (D. Kan. Jan. 5, 2012).
asks the Court to appoint a special master to supervise the
remaining discovery in this case. Defendants oppose this
request. The appointment of a special master is governed by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53. It states, in relevant
part: “a court may appoint a master only to: (C)
address pretrial and posttrial matters that cannot be
effectively and timely addressed by an available district
judge or magistrate judge of the
district.” The decision to appoint a special master
lies within the discretion of the Court. The Court
declines to appoint a special ...