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.

Barr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

November 14, 2017

GEORGIA BARR and RONALD BARR, Plaintiffs,
v.
WA L -MART STORES, INC., Defendant.

          Dee Benson, District Judge

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          PAUL M. WARNER, Chief United States Magistrate Judge

         District Judge Dee Benson referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).[1] Before the court is a Motion to Extend Expert Discovery Deadline (the “Motion for Extension”), [2] filed by Plaintiffs Georgia Barr and Ronald Barr (“Plaintiffs”), and a Motion to Compel Discovery (the “Motion to Compel”)[3] filed by Defendant Wal -Mart Stores, Inc. (“Defendant”). Having reviewed the parties' briefs and the relevant law, the court renders the following Memorandum Decision and Order.[4]

         BACKGROUND

         On September 13, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this case (the “Complaint”).[5]The Complaint alleges that on September 23, 2015, Plaintiff Georgia Barr (“Georgia”) was struck by a line of shopping carts pushed by Defendant's employee while in the parking lot of one of Defendant's stores in Washington County, Utah.[6] As a result of this incident, the Complaint alleges that Georgia has suffered a back injury which has caused her “constant pain, ” and “difficulty walking, standing upright, and performing household and personal care tasks.”[7]Georgia seeks compensatory damages for her injuries.[8] In addition, Plaintiff Ronald Barr (“Ronald”) claims special damages based on loss of spousal consortium.[9]

         DISCUSSION

         The court first addresses Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension, followed by Defendant's Motion to Compel.

         I. MOTION FOR EXTENSION

         In the Motion for Extension, Plaintiffs request an extension of the deadline for disclosure of their initial expert reports from July 27, 2017, to October 28, 2017.[10] Plaintiffs also seek an extension to designate two additional experts.[11] The Motion for Extension was filed on September 13, 2017; nearly two months after the original expert report deadline had passed.

         Pursuant to Rule 16, “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). Moreover, “[a]ny additions or changes to [expert witness] information must be disclosed by the time the party's pretrial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) are due.” Id. at 26(e)(2).

If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.

Id. at 37(c)(1).

         Plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause for modifying the scheduling order. Plaintiffs have also failed to establish that missing the expert report deadline, and failing to disclose two additional experts, was substantially justified. Plaintiffs assert that they “were unable to retain an expert until shortly before the July 27, 2017 deadline.”[12] Plaintiffs should have known at that time that an extension would be necessary. Rather than seek an extension, though, Plaintiffs produced their expert's report a “few weeks after the deadline had already passed.”[13] Moreover, Plaintiffs did not disclose their expert witness until after the deadline for initial expert reports had passed, and did not indicate to Defendant that they wanted to designate additional expert witnesses until September 11, 2017.[14] And yet, Plaintiffs still did not seek an extension of the deadline, delaying until September 13, 2017, when they filed the Motion for Extension. The only explanation Plaintiffs provide for the delay in seeking the requested extension is that they are “very low on funds”[15] and have “limited means.”[16] The court finds that a lack of financial resources is not good cause for amending the scheduling order or an adequate justification for the Plaintiffs' delay in seeking the requested extension. Accordingly, the requested extension is denied.

         II. MOTION TO COMPEL

         In its Motion to Compel, Defendant moves this court for an order compelling Georgia to submit to a Rule 35 physical examination by Jeff Chung, M.D. (“Dr. Chung”).[17] Defendant further moves this court for an order compelling Ronald to submit to a deposition.[18]

         a. Rule 35 Physical ...


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.