1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF 

STEUBENVILLE, OHIO, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 Case No. 2:12-cv-135 

v. Judge Watson 

 Magistrate Judge King 

WELLS TOWNSHIP, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 Defendants. 

JEFFREY KAMERER, JR., 

 Plaintiff, 

 Civil Action 2:13-cv-1192 

 vs. Judge Watson 

 Magistrate Judge King 

RONALD J. BRADCOVICH, 

 Defendant. 

 

 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on the Motion of Defendant Ronald 

Bradcovich for Leave to Name Additional Expert Witness, 12-cv-135, ECF 

104; 2:13-cv-1193, ECF 56 (“Motion”). For the reasons that follow, 

the Motion is GRANTED. 

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 On February 13, 2012, Family Service Association of 

Steubenville, Ohio (“Family Service”), acting on behalf of James W. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00135-MHW-NMK Doc #: 108 Filed: 06/10/15 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

Coil, II,1 initiated an action in this Court, 2:12-cv-135 (the “Family 

Service action”), alleging the denial of Mr. Coil’s rights under the 

Constitution and in violation of state law in connection with an 

incident that occurred on December 25, 2011 in Brilliant, Ohio (“the 

incident”). Named as defendants in the Family Service action are 

Officer Jeffrey Kamerer, an employee of the Wells Township Police 

Department, Wells Township, which funds and manages the Wells Township 

Police Department, and John Ingram, Chief of Police of the Wells 

Township Police Department (collectively, “the Wells Township 

defendants”), as well as Ronald Bradcovich, a motorist involved in the 

incident. The Wells Township defendants assert a cross claim against 

defendant Bradcovich for indemnification and contribution, and 

defendant Bradcovich asserts a cross claim for contribution against 

the Wells Township defendants. 2:12-cv-135, ECF 9, 11, 12, 13. 

 On October 21, 2013, Officer Kamerer filed a personal injury 

action in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Ohio, against 

defendant Bradcovich, asserting claims of negligence arising out of 

the incident. Complaint, 2:13-cv-1192, ECF 2 (the “personal injury 

action”). The personal injury action was removed to this Court on 

November 27, 2013, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 

1332, Notice of Removal, 2:13-cv-1192, ECF 1, and the two actions 

were consolidated on April 29, 2014, Order, 2:12-cv-135, ECF 71, 

2:13-cv-1192, ECF 16. The Court permitted discovery conducted in one 

case to be used in the other case, but ordered that the cases maintain 

 

1 The Probate Court of Jefferson County, Ohio, appointed plaintiff, the Family 

Service Association of Steubenville, Ohio, to serve as the guardian of Mr. 

Coil’s person and estate. Family Service Amended Complaint, ¶ 7. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00135-MHW-NMK Doc #: 108 Filed: 06/10/15 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

separate pretrial schedules. Id. at 1-2. At the time, the deadline 

for disclosing liability-related primary expert reports in the Family 

Service action was December 31, 2012. Preliminary Pretrial Order, 

2:12-cv-135, ECF 16, p. 2. The personal injury action required that 

Officer Kamerer disclose his expert reports by June 1, 2014, and that 

defendant Bradcovich disclose his expert reports by July 1, 2014. 

Memorandum of First Pretrial Conference, 2:13-cv-1192, ECF 8, pp. 2-3. 

Those dates were later extended to October 1, 2014 and December 3, 

2014, respectively. Order, 2:12-cv-135, ECF 78, 2:13-cv-1192, ECF 26, 

pp. 2-3. 

 On September 18, 2014, the Court granted summary judgment in 

favor of the Wells Township defendants on all of Family Service’s 

claims, but denied summary judgment on Family Service’s claims against 

Officer Kamerer. Opinion and Order, 2:12-cv-135, ECF 84. Officer 

Kamerer appealed from that decision. Notice of Appeal, 2:12-cv-135, 

ECF 88. 

 Discovery disputes arose in connection with Officer Kamerer’s 

delay in the production of his medical records in the personal injury 

action, resulting in a further extension of the expert report 

production dates in that action. The reports of primary experts were 

to be produced in the personal injury action by January 16, 2015; the 

reports of rebuttal experts were to be produced in the personal injury 

action by March 16, 2015. Order, 2:12-cv-135, ECF 91, 2:13-cv-1192, 

ECF 41, pp. 1-2. 

 On April 16, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of Officer Kamerer’s motion for 

Case: 2:12-cv-00135-MHW-NMK Doc #: 108 Filed: 06/10/15 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 

summary judgment in the Family Service action. Opinion, 2:12-cv-135, 

ECF 102. See also Mandate, 2:12-cv-135, ECF 103 (filed May 15, 2015). 

This Court thereafter met with counsel for the parties in both cases, 

who advised that yet additional expert reports were to be produced and 

that expert discovery had not yet been completed. Order, 2:12-cv-135, 

ECF 105, 2:13-cv-1192, ECF 57, p. 1. The Court ordered Family Service 

to produce its remaining expert reports by July 15, 2015, and 

established September 15, 2015 as the date by which rebuttal expert 

reports were to be produced in the Family Service action. Id. The 

Court further ordered, inter alia, that all expert discovery must be 

completed by October 15, 2015, and that motions for summary judgment 

may be filed, if at all, no later than November 1, 2015. Id. No 

trial date has been set in either case. 

 The Motion is now ripe for review. 

II. STANDARD 

 Rule 16 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governs the 

Motion. Rule 16(b) requires that the Court, in each civil action not 

exempt from the operation of the rule, enter a scheduling order that, 

inter alia, limits the time to complete discovery and to file motions. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). The Court may also modify, inter alia, 

the timing of disclosures under Rule 26(a) and the extent of 

discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B). The rule further provides 

that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the 

judge's consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). See also S.D. Ohio Civ. 

R. 16.2 (“[T]he Magistrate Judge is empowered to . . . modify 

scheduling orders upon a showing of good cause.”). “‘The primary 

Case: 2:12-cv-00135-MHW-NMK Doc #: 108 Filed: 06/10/15 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
5 

measure of Rule 16’s ‘good cause’ standard is the moving party’s 

diligence in attempting to meet the case management order’s 

requirements.’” Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 

2002) (quoting Bradford v. DANA Corp., 249 F.3d 807, 809 (8th Cir. 

2001)). “A district court should also consider possible prejudice to 

the party opposing the modification.” Andretti v. Borla Performance 

Indus., Inc., 426 F.3d 824, 830 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Inge, 281 F.3d 

at 625). The focus is, however, “primarily upon the diligence of the 

movant; the absence of prejudice to the opposing party is not 

equivalent to a showing of good cause.” Ortiz v. Karnes, 2:06-cv-562, 

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75287, at *2 (S.D. Ohio July 26, 2010) (citing 

Tschantz v. McCann, 160 F.R.D. 568, 571 (N.D. Ind. 1995)). Whether to 

grant leave under Rule 16(b) falls within the district court’s 

discretion. Leary v. Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 909 (6th Cir. 2003). 

III. DISCUSSION 

In the case presently before the Court, defendant Bradcovich 

seeks leave to name Marc Green, Ph.D., to testify as a nighttime 

vision expert as to 

whether James Coil and/or Jeffrey Kamerer would have been 

reasonably discernible as [defendant Bradcovich] approached 

the scene of the accident and whether he ought to have been 

able to have avoided the accident. 

Motion, p. 1. Noting that little discovery was completed during the 

pendency of the interlocutory appeal in the Family Service action, 

defendant Bradcovich, who has already produced Dr. Green’s expert 

report, argues that the grant of the Motion will not delay resolution 

of the personal injury action. Id. 

 Officer Kamerer contends that defendant Bradcovich’s failure to 

Case: 2:12-cv-00135-MHW-NMK Doc #: 108 Filed: 06/10/15 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
6 

timely produce Dr. Green’s expert report is neither substantially 

justified nor harmless. Opposition, p. 1. Although Officer Kamerer 

apparently concedes that there were discovery delays in the personal 

injury action related to the production of his medical records, he 

argues that those delays had no impact on the production of Dr. 

Green’s report. Id. at 1-3. Noting that defendant Bradcovich has 

known of Officer Kamerer’s negligence expert witness, Walter J. 

Kosmatka, since February 15, 2013, Officer Kamerer complains that 

defendant Bradcovich waited nearly two years before identifying Dr. 

Green as his expert. Id. Officer Kamerer contends that the grant of 

the Motion will work to his prejudice by “complicat[ing]” “the status 

of discovery” and unfairly rewarding defendant Bradcovich’s 

“dereliction.” Id. at 4. 

 Defendant Bradcovich disagrees, insisting that the record 

reflects his diligence in discovery and preparing his defense despite 

Officer Kamerer’s failure to fully cooperate in discovery. Reply, p. 

1-3. Defendant Bradcovich denies that the grant of his Motion will 

prejudice Officer Kamerer because Dr. Green’s report has been 

produced, no trial date has been set, and there remains ample time to 

conduct discovery in accordance with the deadlines recently 

established by the Court. Id. 

 Defendant Bradcovich’s arguments are well-taken. The procedural 

history of this case demonstrates his diligence in the personal injury 

action in seeking discovery and attempting to meet, or asking to 

extend, case deadlines. Moreover, Officer Kamerer will suffer no 

prejudice if the Motion is granted. As noted supra, the Court has 

Case: 2:12-cv-00135-MHW-NMK Doc #: 108 Filed: 06/10/15 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
7 

extended the deadline for the production of expert reports in the 

Family Service action and has extended the date in both cases by which 

expert discovery must be completed. Order, 2:12-cv-135, ECF 105, 

2:13-cv-1192, ECF 57, p. 2. No trial date has yet been set in either 

case. Under these circumstances, there is ample time to depose Dr. 

Green. Indeed, Family Service has not opposed the Motion. In short, 

defendant Bradcovich has established the necessary good cause in 

seeking to disclose and rely upon Dr. Green’s report. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(b)(4). 

WHEREUPON, the Motion of Defendant Ronald Bradcovich for Leave to 

Name Additional Expert Witness, 2:12-cv-135, ECF 104; 2:13-cv-1193, 

ECF 56, is GRANTED. The Court notes that the expert discovery date 

remains October 15, 2015, and that any discovery-related motions must 

be filed prior to that date. Order, 2:12-cv-135, ECF 105, 2:13-cv1192, ECF 57, p. 2. 

June 10, 2015 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:12-cv-00135-MHW-NMK Doc #: 108 Filed: 06/10/15 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>