Hill v. Jetblue Airways Corporation

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo---- ERICKA BOHNEL, an individual; NO. 2:18-cv-00081-WBS- ROSA MARTINEZ, an individual, DMC Plaintiffs, v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ 16 MOTION TO CONTINUE Defendant. TRIALS

21 MICHELLE HILL, an individual; NO. 2:17-cv-01604-WBS-DB ARIEL EPSTEIN POLLACK, an individual, 23 Plaintiffs, 24 v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, 26 Defendant.

1 ----oo0oo---- 2 Plaintiffs assert personal injury claims against JetBlue arising out of an August 2016 turbulence incident on JetBlue Airways Flight 429 from Boston Logan International Airport to Sacramento International Airport. (Hill Compl. (Hill Docket No. 1); Bohnel Compl. (Bohnel Docket No. 1).) Liability discovery in Bohnel et al v. Jetblue Airways Corporation (2:18- cv-00081-WBS-DMC) has been consolidated with that in Hill, et al v. Jetblue Airways Corporation (No. 2:17-cv-01604-WBS-DB). (See Bohnel Docket No. 17; Hill Docket No. 26.) Both cases concern the same August 2016 turbulence incident. Presently before the court is plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Trial Date. (See Bohnel Docket No. 24; Hill Docket No. 30.)

14 Plaintiffs ask this court to shift the trial dates and the discovery deadlines in Hill and Bohnel forward so that they may have time to conduct discovery before trial.1 Defendant does not object to the continuance of the trial dates in Hill and Bohnel.2 (See Response to Pl.’s Mot. to Continue Trial at 2 The National Transportation Safety Board is currently investigating the August 2016 turbulence incident that gave rise to plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. (See Luke Decl. Ex 1 (Hill Docket No. 31-1).) As a result, JetBlue is subject to an investigative hold by the Board and JetBlue’s ability to respond to plaintiffs’ discovery requests is circumscribed by federal regulations. (See id.) Plaintiffs state that the investigative hold has hampered their ability to conduct discovery and placed the parties in a “holding pattern.” (Mot. to Continue Trial Date at 5.)

2 Confusingly, JetBlue’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Trial Date indicates that it objects “to the consolidation of the damages trial portion of all four [p]laintiffs’ cases.” (See Response to Pl.’s Mot. to Continue Trial at 2 (Hill Docket No. 32; Bohnel Docket No. 26).) Given that plaintiffs are moving to continue the trial dates in Hill (Bohnel Docket No. 26; Hill Docket No. 32).)

2 In light of plaintiffs’ diligence in attempting to conduct discovery in a timely manner, the need for a continuance, the lack of objection to the continuance, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs if their motion is denied, the court will grant plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Trial. (Bohnel Docket No. 24; Hill Docket No. 30.) See United States v. 2.61 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Mariposa Cty., 791 F.2d 666, 671 (9th Cir. 1985)(discussing factors to be evaluated by courts considering motions to continue trial).

11 Accordingly, the court modifies the scheduling orders in Hill (Docket No. 26) and Bohnel (Docket No. 17) as follows: 13 Fact discovery completion December 30, 2019.

14 Expert witness disclosure June 8, 2020 15 Rebuttal witness disclosure July 6, 2020 16 Discovery completion deadline August 3, 2020 17 Dispositive motion deadline September 14, 2020 Final pretrial conference October 26, 2020 at 18 1:30 p.m.

Hill Trial January 5, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.

20 Bohnell Trial January 20, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue the Trial Date (Hill Docket No. 30; Bohnel Docket No. 24) is GRANTED and the dates and deadlines of the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (Bohnel Docket No. 17; Hill Docket No. 26) are modified as described herein.

27 and Bohnel, and not to consolidate, the court will ignore JetBlue’s objections to the consolidation of the trials on the damages issue.

1 | Dated: August 7, 2019 a hho A hh WILLIAM B. SHUBB 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ,