Carano-King v. Bogenschuetz

W.D. Missouri

Carano-King v. Bogenschuetz

DecidedJanuary 12, 2021

Docket6:19-cv-03361

StatusUnknown

This text of Carano-King v. Bogenschuetz (Carano-King v. Bogenschuetz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carano-King v. Bogenschuetz, (W.D. Mo. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELITA CARANO-KING, ) And GARY KING, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 6:19-cv-03361-MDH ) DAVID J. BOGENSCHUETZ, ) And SCA, INC., ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Untimely Expert Designations and to Preclude These Experts from Offering Any Testimony/Opinions at Trial. (Doc. 53). Plaintiffs initially made expert disclosures on July 16, 2020. Plaintiffs untimely disclosed two additional experts on October 28, 2020, 16 days after Plaintiffs disclosed their other expert reports that were delayed due an unexpected retirement of one of Plaintiffs’ experts. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 permits [a] district court to set deadlines for the disclosure of evidence and to impose sanctions on a party for failing to meet a deadline.” Firefighter's Inst. for Racial Equal. ex rel. Anderson v. City of St. Louis, 220 F.3d 898, 902 (8th Cir. 2000). However, such sanctions should not be imposed where plaintiffs’ “failure to meet a deadline was either harmless or substantially justified.” Id. There are four factors in assessing the substantiality of any proffered justification for the failure to timely disclose, as well as the harmlessness of that failure: (1) the importance of the excluded material; (2) the explanation of the party for its failure to comply with the required disclosure; (3) the potential prejudice that would arise from allowing the material to be used at Trial, or on a Motion; and, (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice. See Citizens Bank v. Ford Motor Co., 16 F.3d 965, 966 (8th Cir.1994). Here, Here, plaintiffs meet both criteria for avoiding the imposition of sanctions. The Court finds that Plaintiffs meet both criteria for avoiding the imposition of sanctions. Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 53) is therefore DENIED.

Defendants request in their Reply (Doc. 62) that if the abovementioned Motion (Doc. 53) is denied that the trial setting be continued and that a new scheduling order be entered in the case. The parties are hereby ORDERED to submit an amended scheduling order within 15 days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 12, 2021 /s/ Douglas Harpool______ DOUGLAS HARPOOL United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELITA CARANO-KING, ) And GARY KING, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 6:19-cv-03361-MDH ) DAVID J. BOGENSCHUETZ, ) And SCA, INC., ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Untimely Expert Designations and to Preclude These Experts from Offering Any Testimony/Opinions at Trial. (Doc. 53). Plaintiffs initially made expert disclosures on July 16, 2020. Plaintiffs untimely disclosed two additional experts on October 28, 2020, 16 days after Plaintiffs disclosed their other expert reports that were delayed due an unexpected retirement of one of Plaintiffs’ experts. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 permits [a] district court to set deadlines for the disclosure of evidence and to impose sanctions on a party for failing to meet a deadline.” Firefighter's Inst. for Racial Equal. ex rel. Anderson v. City of St. Louis, 220 F.3d 898, 902 (8th Cir. 2000). However, such sanctions should not be imposed where plaintiffs’ “failure to meet a deadline was either harmless or substantially justified.” Id. There are four factors in assessing the substantiality of any proffered justification for the failure to timely disclose, as well as the harmlessness of that failure: (1) the importance of the excluded material; (2) the explanation of the party for its failure to comply with the required disclosure; (3) the potential prejudice that would arise from allowing the material to be used at Trial, or on a Motion; and, (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice. See Citizens Bank v. Ford Motor Co., 16 F.3d 965, 966 (8th Cir.1994). Here, Here, plaintiffs meet both criteria for avoiding the imposition of sanctions. The Court finds that Plaintiffs meet both criteria for avoiding the imposition of sanctions. Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 53) is therefore DENIED.

Defendants request in their Reply (Doc. 62) that if the abovementioned Motion (Doc. 53) is denied that the trial setting be continued and that a new scheduling order be entered in the case. The parties are hereby ORDERED to submit an amended scheduling order within 15 days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 12, 2021 /s/ Douglas Harpool______ DOUGLAS HARPOOL United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carano-King v. Bogenschuetz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carano-king-v-bogenschuetz-mowd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack