Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01370/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01370-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mario Casillas, et al, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc.,

et al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-1370-PHX-DGC

ORDER

The Court held a discovery conference call wit h t he parties on January 11, 2006.

The call concerned t he schedule established in the Court’s orders of January 5, 2006 and

January 11, 2006 for discovery related to newly-found evidence disclosed by Defendants

shortly before the discovery cut-off in t his case. See Doc. ##230, 243. Plaintiffs’ counsel

described the substantial discovery required as a result of Defendants’ newly-found

evidence and explained that such discovery could not be completed within the schedule

set forth in t he Court’s orders. Plaintiffs’ counsel sought a 120-day extension of all dates.

The Court’s order of January 5, 2006 (Doc. #230) made clear that discovery is closed

and that additional discovery will be p ermit t ed only with respect to issues raised by

Defendants’ new disclosures. Notwit hst anding this limitation, Plaintiffs have persuaded

the Court that the existing schedule will not be sufficient to complete the discovery. The

Court stated on several occasions that discovery in this case would not be extended, but

decided that the new evidence was sufficiently important that it should be available for

Defendants’ use at trial even at the cost of additional discovery . The Court likewise

Case 2:04-cv-01370-DGC Document 247 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

concludes that Plaintiffs should be afforded a fair opportunity to conduct discovery

concerning the new evidence. As a result , t he Court will extend the discovery schedule

in this case as set forth below. The parties should not assume from recent events that the

Court will continue to grant continuances. It is time for this case to be resolved, and the

Court expects to do so under the following schedule.

1. Additional factual discovery may be conducted with respect to the 11 new

witnesses and statements disclosed by Defendants’ first supplemental disclosure and the

5 new witnesses and statements disclosed by Defendants’ second supplemental

disclosure. This discovery will be limited to information and issues raised by these new

witnesses and their statements. This factual discovery, which may include depositions,

shall be completed on or before April 14, 2006. 

2. Expert disclosures and discovery shall occur on the following schedule:

a. Plaintiffs shall supplement their existing expert reports to address

issues raised by the additional fact discovery permitted in Doc. #230, and shall provide full

and complete expert disclosures as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure with respect to the halogen treatment and cap cost experts, no later t han

April 28, 2006.

b. Defendants shall provide full and comp let e expert disclosures,

including final expert reports, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, no later than May 26, 2006.

c. Plaintiffs shall make their experts available for depositions between

May 29 and June 23, 2006.

d. Defendants shall make their experts available for depositions between

June 23 and July 21, 2006. 

e. Rebuttal reports will not be permitted. Nor shall the parties be

permitted to supplement the final reports to be disclosed by Plaintiffs on Apri l 28, 2006

and by Defendants on May 26, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01370-DGC Document 247 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

f. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before August 4, 2006. The

parties are reminded that the Case M anagement Order establishes a limit of one motion for

summary judgment per side. See Doc. #18, ¶ 7(b). The parties are also advised that the

Court will not be inclined to grant page extensions. The parties should complete their

briefing within the page limits established by the Local Rules.

g. All ot her terms of the Court’s Case Management Order remain in

effect.

DATED this 13th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01370-DGC Document 247 Filed 01/13/06 Page 3 of 3