Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. Eary

United States District Court, D. Kansas

September 1, 2017

JOY SMITH, Plaintiff,
v.
NICHOLAS R. EARY, Defendant.

          AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

          James P. O'Hara, U.S. Magistrate Judge

         Defendant has filed a motion (ECF No. 34) to amend the scheduling order (ECF No. 20). For good cause shown, the motion is granted.

         This is a personal-injury action arising from a motor-vehicle accident. On or about July 14, 2017, plaintiff underwent spine surgery allegedly resulting from the accident. Claiming the results of plaintiff's surgery will not be fully known until approximately five to six months post-surgery, defendant seeks extensions of the deadlines for the parties to complete physical and mental examinations, and for defendant to serve his expert disclosures.[1] Defendant argues plaintiff's post-surgery condition is relevant to plaintiff's claim for lost future wages, lost future household services, and future medical expenses. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing defendant has known the surgery was necessary since before the suit was filed, and that plaintiff is capable of undergoing an IME in time for defendant to meet present deadlines. Plaintiff also claims she will be prejudiced by any delay, citing financial hardship resulting from the accident.

         Motions to modify scheduling orders are governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4), which provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” This good-cause standard does not focus on the “bad faith” of the movant, nor the “lack of prejudice” to the opposing party.[2] “Rather, it focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to modify the scheduling order.”[3] Ultimately, whether to modify the scheduling order lies within the court's sound discretion.[4]

         Given the nature of plaintiff's claims and damages, and the relatively limited extension sought, the court finds good cause to modify the scheduling order. Accordingly, with the consent of the presiding U.S. District Judge, Julie A. Robinson, the scheduling order is amended as follows:

SUMMARY OF DEADLINES AND SETTINGS

Event

Deadline/Setting

Mediation completed

January 30, 2018

Supplementation of initial disclosures

40 days before the deadline for completion of all discovery

All discovery completed

February 20, 2018

Experts disclosed by defendant

January 30, 2018

Rebuttal experts disclosed

February 9, 2018

Physical and mental examinations

January 19, 2018

Motions challenging admissibility of expert testimony

45 days before trial

Proposed pretrial order due

February 27, 2018

Pretrial conference

March 6, 2018, at 11:00 a.m.

Trial

June 12, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.

         All other provisions of the original scheduling order shall remain in effect. The schedule adopted in this amended scheduling order shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of good cause.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] To the extent remaining deadlines will be impacted by these extensions, defendant seeks an order extending all remaining deadlines and continuing the trial setting.

[2] Manuel v. Wichita Hotel Partners, LLC, No. 09-1244, 2010 WL 3861278, at *2 (D. Kan. Sept. 20, 2010).

[3] Id. (quoting Grieg v. Botros, No. 08-1181, 2010 WL 3270102, at *3 (D. Kan. Aug. 12, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.