Townsend v. Ethicon, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Tamara J. Townsend, Case No. 2:20-cv-01984-APG-DJA Plaintiff, 7 Order v. Ethicon, Inc., and Johnson & Jonson, Defendants.

12 The parties—Plaintiff Tamara J. Townsend and Defendants Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson—have filed a joint motion to reopen discovery (ECF No. 104), a joint status report (ECF No. 105), and proposed scheduling order (ECF No. 107). Having reviewed the joint motion to reopen discovery, the Court finds good cause to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of addressing changes in Plaintiff’s damages. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows the Court to modify a scheduling order to reopen discovery “only for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, the parties agree on reopening discovery to address Plaintiff’s damages that Plaintiff asserts she has continued to incur since the close of discovery two years ago in the multidistrict litigation.

22 (ECF No. 104 at 1-2). Because Plaintiff’s damages are ongoing, the parties are unlikely to capture the full extent of her damages without additional discovery, regardless of their diligence.

24 The Court thus grants the joint motion to reopen discovery.

25 The Court also grants the parties proposed scheduling order in part. Certain of the parties’ proposed deadlines—for updated fact sheets, mediation, video designations, a hearing on designations, trial, motions in limine, and the pretrial conference—are not contemplated by the for updated fact sheets, medical authorizations, and video designations (the date for which the parties state they will separately propose) appear to be the type more appropriately decided and enforced by the parties themselves. Like they would with deadlines to respond to discovery requests, the parties are invited to govern these deadlines themselves and seek Court intervention only in the event the deadlines are not followed.

6 The Court will also not set a mediation or hearing on designations unless and until they become necessary, and the parties move for them. To do otherwise would clog the Court calendar. While magistrate judges are empowered to conduct settlement conferences and hearings on discovery matters under Local Rule IB 1-7(b), the Court does not set these until the parties move for them and demonstrate their necessity.

11 Under Local Rule 16-2, Courts do not conduct pretrial conferences. Under Local Rule 16- 4 the parties will provide three alternative dates for trial to the Court in their joint pretrial order, not sooner. Under Local Rule 16-3, the deadline for motions in limine is thirty days before trial, again, which deadline is set after the parties file their joint pretrial order. The Court thus grants the parties’ stipulation in part only with respect to fact discovery, experts, summary judgment, the motion regarding Dr. Rosenzweig, the Daubert motion, and the joint pretrial order.

17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion to reopen discovery (ECF Nol. 104) is granted.

19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties stipulated discovery plan (ECF No. 107) is granted in part. The following deadlines shall govern the limited discovery and motions in this case: Fact discovery deadline July 7, 2022 Deadline for Plaintiff’s supplemental case August 8, 2022 specific expert reports and disclosure of vocational and/or damages expert(s) limited to occurrences after the close of MDL discovery, if any Deadline for Defendants’ supplemental case September 5, 2022 specific expert report and disclosure of rebuttal expert vocational and/or damages expert(s), if any Deadline for Defendants to file self-contained October 5, 2022 motion for summary judgment Deadline for Defendants to file supplemental October 5, 2022 motion on Dr. Rosenzweig Deadline for Daubert motions on open issues October 5, 2022 Joint pretrial order October 14, 2022

DATED: February 2, 2022 15 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE