IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

GARRISON SOUTHFIELD 

PARK, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:17-cv-783 

 

 vs. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

CLOSED LOOP REFINING AND 

RECOVERY, INC., et al., 

 

Defendants. 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Revision of Deadlines in Preliminary 

Pretrial Order filed by Plaintiff Garrison Southfield Park LLC1 and Defendants Complete 

Recycling Solutions, LLC; Haier America Company, L.L.C.; Micro Center, Inc.; RMG 

Enterprise, LLC, and Sony Electronics, Inc. (“the Moving Parties”). (ECF No. 735.) 

Defendants Electronic Manufacturers Recycling Management Company (“MRM”) and Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) have responded in opposition. (ECF Nos. 741, 743.)2

 The 

Moving Parties have filed a Reply. (ECF No. 748.) For the following reasons, the Motion is 

GRANTED. 

1 The motion was filed jointly in this case and in Case No. 2:19-cv-1041 on behalf of both 

Plaintiffs. 

2

 The Moving Parties represent in their motion that LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc. also indicated its 

objection to the proposed schedule. It does not appear, however, that this party filed a response. 

The Moving Parties further represent that the remaining Defendants did not respond to the 

invitation to join the motion. (ECF No. 735, at 3.) 
2 

I. 

The Moving Parties assert that the addition of new parties necessitates the requested 

revision to the case management schedule.3

 They propose the following revisions. 

Events Prior Deadlines in 

Preliminary Pretrial 

Order of 1/22/2020 

Revised Deadlines 

Initial Disclosures for New 

Defendants 

February 28, 2020 May 31, 2021 

Completion of Factual 

Discovery 

March 1, 2021 January 31, 2022 

Parties’ Designation of Primary 

Experts and Subject Matter 

August 14, 2020 January 31, 2022 

Parties’ Designation of Rebuttal 

Experts and Subject Matter 

September 15, 2020 February 28, 2022 

Settlement Conference 

(Mediation) 

March 2021 February 2022 

Primary Expert Reports1 October 16, 2020 March 31, 2022 

Rebuttal Expert Reports December 4, 2020 April 29, 2022 

Completion of Expert Discovery N/A June 30, 2022 

Dispositive Motions April 1, 2021 July 29, 2022 

MRM objects to the proposed schedule, contending that, given its evident lack of 

liability, such a schedule is inequitable and unduly burdensome. As an alternative, MRM 

3

 The Moving Parties explain that they are requesting that all primary and rebuttal expert 

witnesses be required to submit expert reports pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B). (ECF No. 

735, at n. 1.) In its response, MRM states that it does not object to this request. (ECF No. 741, 

at n.5.) SEA does not address this issue as the bulk of its brief is devoted to arguing in support 

of its request for a hearing to be scheduled on the pending objections to the Kuusakoski 

settlement. 
3 

proposes the following bifurcated discovery schedule designed to address the issue of liability 

first. 

Events Prior Deadlines in 

Preliminary Pretrial 

Order of 1/22/2020 

MRM’s Proposed 

Revised Deadlines 

Phase I: Liability

Initial Disclosures for New Defendants February 28, 2020 April 16, 2021 

Completion of Factual 

Discovery 

March 1, 2021 April 15, 2022 

Plaintiffs’ Designation of Primary 

Experts and Subject Matter 

August 14, 2020 April 29, 2022 

Defendants’ Designation of Primary 

Experts and Subject Matter 

September 1, 2020 May 13, 2022 

Plaintiffs’ Designation of Rebuttal 

Experts and Subject Matter 

September 15, 2020 May 27, 2022 

Defendants’ Designation of Rebuttal 

Experts and Subject Matter 

N/A 

Primary Expert Reports5 October 16, 2020 June 27, 2022 

Rebuttal Expert Reports December 4, 2020 July 27, 2022 

Completion of Expert Discovery March 1, 2021 December 22, 2022 

Dispositive Motions April 1, 2021 March 22, 2023 

Settlement Conference 

(Mediation) 

March 2021 May 2023 

Phase II: Damages/Allocation 

Proposed Damages Phase Case 

Management Calendar Motions 

N/A 2 Weeks After 

Judgment on 

Dispositive 

Motions 

According to MRM, it is entitled to twelve months to conduct discovery consistent with 

the amount of time afforded to the earlier defendants. MRM asserts that this length of time is 

necessary because the scope of discovery has not changed, the discovery conducted to date has 

been extremely limited and is largely irrelevant to the allegations directed toward it, and both the 

scale and complexity of this CERCLA litigation require it. MRM also contends that its proposed 

schedule, requiring the completion of expert discovery and the filing of dispositive motions 

before a settlement conference, will facilitate a meaningful discussion at such a conference. SEA 
4 

supports MRM’s proposed schedule but requests that the Court order early and regular mediation 

and schedule oral argument on the pending Motion for Settlement with the Kuusakoski 

Defendants. 

In Reply, the Moving Parties note that they have proposed a schedule spanning 

approximately 18 months from the date MRM and SEA filed their answers and that MRM’s 

schedule would add an additional ten months to the schedule focused on the issue of liability 

alone. Further, they assert that their proposed schedule will not prejudice MRM because MRM 

will not be required to wait until the end of discovery or the dispositive motion deadline to file a 

dispositive motion on the issue of liability. Additionally, they contend that the prior parties have 

undertaken substantial discovery, that all the evidence exchanged to date has been provided to 

MRM and SEA, and that the settlements that have been negotiated and filed reduce the amount 

of remaining work. The Moving Parties also assert that the case law cited by MRM does not 

support its view that the circumstances of this action warrant bifurcation. Finally, with respect to 

the timing of mediation, the Moving Parties explain that their proposal that mediation be ordered 

to be conducted after the close of fact discovery represents a middle ground between MRM’s and 

SEA’s proposals. 

II. 

The Undersigned concludes that the Moving Parties have the stronger arguments here. In 

response, MRM and SEA have not demonstrated that their proposed case schedule will either 

expedite this case or economize resources. See Moraine Properties, LLC v. Ethyl Corp., No. 

3:07-CV-229, 2008 WL 11351579, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2008) (denying request for “unique 

discovery schedule that would see an early termination of discovery on the issue of whether 

Defendant is a potentially responsible party” on same basis). In fact, it appears that quite the 
5 

contrary is likely given that their proposed approach minimally would add several months to the 

case schedule. Not only that, the proposed bifurcation also lends itself to disputes over whether 

certain evidence is relevant to a particular issue. Further, as recognized by the Court in Moraine

when denying a similar motion, courts within the Sixth Circuit appear to have utilized devices 

such as a bifurcation of trial rather than a bifurcation of discovery. Id. Additionally, as the 

Moving Parties note, while mediation under the schedule adopted here will not take place until 

the conclusion of fact discovery, nothing prevents any agreement to mediate at an earlier date as 

circumstances evolve. Accordingly, the Moving Parties’ proposed schedule will be adopted in 

its entirety with an amendment to reflect a new due date for initial disclosures. 

Finally, to the extent that SEA directs its response to the issue of a hearing on the 

settlement with the Kuusakoski Defendants, the Undersigned defers to the District Judge on this 

matter and will not consider the issue of scheduling oral argument here. 

III. 

For the reasons stated above, the Motion for Revision of Deadlines in Preliminary Pretrial 

Order filed by Plaintiff Garrison Southfield Park LLC and Defendants Complete Recycling 

Solutions, LLC; Haier America Company, L.L.C.; Micro Center, Inc.; RMG Enterprise, LLC, 

and Sony Electronics, Inc. (“the Moving Parties”) (ECF No. 735) is GRANTED. The 

Preliminary Pretrial Order dated January 22, 2020 (ECF No. 502) is MODIFIED as follows: 

INITIAL DISCLOSURES 

Initial disclosures shall be made by JUNE 30, 2021. 

DISCOVERY PROCEDURES 

All fact discovery shall be completed by JANUARY 31, 2022. All expert discovery shall be 

completed by JUNE 30, 2022. For purposes of complying with this order, all parties shall schedule 

their discovery in such a way as to require all responses to discovery to be served prior to the cutoff date, and shall file any motions relating to discovery within the discovery period unless it is 
6 

impossible or impractical to do so. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on any matter 

related to discovery, they are directed to arrange a conference with the Court. 

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 

Any dispositive motions shall be filed by JULY 29, 2022. 

EXPERT TESTIMONY 

Parties to designate primary experts and subject matter by JANUARY 31, 2022. Parties to 

designate rebuttal experts and subject matter by FEBRUARY 28, 2022. Primary expert reports 

must be produced by MARCH 31, 2022. Rebuttal expert reports must be produced by APRIL 29, 

2022. If the expert is specifically retained, the reports must conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), 

unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. If the expert is not specifically retained, the reports must 

conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C), unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A), leave of court is not required to depose a testifying expert. 

SETTLEMENT 

The parties agree to make a good faith effort to settle this case. The parties understand that this 

case will be referred to an attorney mediator, or to the Magistrate Judge, for a settlement conference 

in FEBRUARY 2022. In order for the conference to be meaningful, the parties agree to complete 

all discovery that may affect their ability to evaluate this case prior to the settlement conference. 

The parties understand that they will be expected to comply fully with the settlement order which 

requires inter alia that settlement demands and offers be exchanged prior to the conference and 

that principals of the parties attend the conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers______ 

DATED: June 3, 2021 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE