Villarreael v. Navistar Inc

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Texas
DecidedMay 2, 2023
Docket3:20-cv-02980
StatusUnknown

This text of Villarreael v. Navistar Inc (Villarreael v. Navistar Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Villarreael v. Navistar Inc, (N.D. Tex. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

MAGALI VILLARREAL, § Individually and on Behalf of the § Estate of JA1, Deceased, and as § Next Friend of JA2, a minor, § § Plaintiff, § § Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-2980-X v. § § NAVISTAR, INC., NAVISTAR § INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, § IC BUS, LLC, and IC BUS OF § OKLAHOMA, LLC, § § Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court has considered the Parties’ Third Amended Joint Report and Proposed Discovery Plan of the Parties [Doc. No. 78] and it sets the following schedule for this case’s disposition.1

1. The jury trial is scheduled on this Court’s two-week docket beginning March 4, 2024 at 9:00 AM.

2. A Pretrial Conference is scheduled for February 26, 2024.

3. Counsel shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) by June 1, 2023.

4. Motions for leave to join other parties shall be filed by May 23, 2023.

5. Motions for leave to amend pleadings shall be filed by May 23, 2023.

6. The party with the burden of proof on a claim shall file a designation of expert witnesses and comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by July 31, 2023.

1 Unless the Court orders otherwise, the Parties must observe the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court. 7. Rebuttal designation of expert witnesses and compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) shall be made by August 30, 2023.

8. Counsel shall confer and file a joint report informing the Court of their choice of a mediator or their inability to agree upon a mediator by June 16, 2023. At that time, the Court will issue a mediation order, discussing the guidelines and requirements of the mediation.

9. All discovery procedures shall be initiated in time to complete discovery by October 29, 2023.2

10. The parties shall mediate their case by November 12, 2023.

11. Counsel shall confer and file a joint report setting forth the status of settlement negotiations by November 19, 2023.

12. All motions for summary judgment shall be filed by November 29, 2023.3

13. All challenges to experts—including motions to strike or exclude expert witnesses—shall be filed by November 29, 2023.

14. The Court “heavily disfavor[s] sealing information placed in the judicial record” and discourages such requests.4 The parties may agree between themselves to designate documents “confidential” during discovery. The typical standard there involves the parties assessing whether they want that material in the public domain. But filing that material with the Court under seal is a different matter altogether. Court proceedings are, by and large, public matters (and rightfully so given that tax dollars fund the courts and we have this wonderful protection called the First Amendment).5

2 The parties generally may agree to extend this discovery deadline, provided that the extension does not affect any subsequent deadlines and the parties notify the Court in writing. The Court retains the right to reject an agreed extension. 3 Counsel should review carefully Local Rule 56.2(b), which limits to one the number of summary judgment motions that a party may file “[u]nless otherwise directed by the presiding judge, or permitted by law.” 4 June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519–20 (5th Cir. 2022). 5 “The public’s right of access to judicial records is a fundamental element of the rule of law. . . . Article III courts are independent, and it is particularly because they are independent that the access presumption is so vital—it gives the federal judiciary a measure of accountability, in turn giving the public confidence in the administration of justice.” Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 417 (5th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). “The rationale for public access is even greater” in cases that “involve matters of particularly public interest.” June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 520 (cleaned up); see also SEC v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993) (“Public access [to judicial records] serves to promote trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better perception of its A party seeking to file a specific document under seal6 must move for leave to do so and: (1) identify precisely what information (pages, lines, etc.) the party wants sealed; (2) conduct a line-by-line, page-by-page analysis7 explaining and briefing why the risks of disclosure outweigh the public’s right to know; and (3) explain why no other viable alternative to sealing exists.8 Further, all facts recited in any such motion must be verified by the oath or declaration of a person or persons with personal knowledge, which will assist the Court in making fact findings that can withstand appellate scrutiny.9

The Court recognizes that typically the party seeking to seal documents may not possess personal knowledge of the facts to be included in a motion for leave to file under seal. In these instances, the parties should either prepare joint motions for leave to file documents under seal (and the party with personal knowledge verifies the facts in the section on justification) or the parties should make separate filings.

15. Counsel shall file by February 19, 2024 a Joint Pretrial Order containing the

fairness.” (quoting Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 682 (3d Cir. 1998))); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983) (the First Amendment and the common law limit the court’s discretion to seal records). 6 Parties should not seek to file under seal any information that is already publicly available. June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 520 (“We require information that would normally be private to become public by entering the judicial record. How perverse it would be to say that what was once public must become private—simply because it was placed in the courts that belong to the public. We will abide no such absurdity.” (cleaned up)). 7 Trans Tool, LLC v. All State Gear Inc., No. SA-19-CV-1304-JKP, 2022 WL 608945, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2022) (“[I]t is certainly within a court’s discretion to summarily deny a request to seal when it is apparent that the submitter has not conducted its own document-by-document, line-by-line review.”). 8 Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Family Planning & Preventative Health Servs., Inc. v. Kaufman, No. 17-50534, Doc. 00514098372, at 2 (5th Cir. Aug. 1, 2017) (“This court disfavors the sealing of briefs or portions of the record where the parties on appeal have not articulated a legal basis for the sealing.”). The Fifth Circuit has “repeatedly required parties to justify keeping materials under seal.” Id.; see, e.g., Claimant ID 100236236 v. BP Expl. & Prod’n, Inc., No. 16-30521 (5th Cir. Jan. 31, 2017) (requesting letter briefs sua sponte as to whether appeal should remain under seal and entering order unsealing appeal); United States v. Quintanilla, No.16-50677 (5th Cir. Nov.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Villarreael v. Navistar Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villarreael-v-navistar-inc-txnd-2023.