Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180430_0000591.WPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:26:13+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Walsh/Granite JV v. HDR Engineering, Inc.
Walsh/Granite JV v. HDR Engineering, Inc.
WALSH/GRANITE JV, et al., Consolidated Defendants.
b. All non-privileged documents from Fred Horton which have not yet been produced, together with a privilege log.
2. To the extent that Walsh/Granite intends to take depositions of HDR's representative(s) with respect to the expedited Motion for Summary Judgment, all such depositions shall be conducted no later than May 22, 2018.
3. HDR shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment on its declaratory judgment claim no later than June 1, 2018; Walsh/Granite shall file its Response in Opposition no later than July 2, 2018; HDR shall file its Reply no later than July 16, 2018; HDR shall file its Sur Reply no later than July 30, 2018; and the Court shall hear Argument on this Motion on Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5B, 5th Floor, Joseph F. Weis, Jr., U.S. Courthouse, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219.
4. All other provisions of the Court's September 29, 2018 Case Management Order, (Docket No. ), and January 3, 2018 Scheduling Order (Docket No. ), remain in full force and effect, and no further enlargements shall be granted.
In so holding, the Court notes that it is entitled to great deference when interpreting its own orders. See In re Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 718 F.3d 236, 243-45 (3d Cir. 2013). Having fully considered the parties' briefs and arguments, it appears to the Court that Walsh/Granite has misconstrued the breadth of the Court's January 3, 2018 Order. In issuing said expedited Order, the Court agreed with HDR that it could efficiently resolve the parties' dispute as to the nature, extent, and scope of HDR's declaratory judgment claim by interpreting the relevant contractual provisions and Exhibit H to the Phase II Contract. (Docket No. 96). Nevertheless, given that Walsh/Granite repeatedly expressed concerns that it needed discovery to defend against this declaratory judgment claim, the Court ordered that the parties have ninety (90) days to engage in limited discovery on same. (Id.). Inexplicably, Walsh/Granite, while apparently taking the position that it is now entitled to unlimited discovery on this claim, “sat on its hands” for the first sixty (60) days of that period, waiting until the last possible day to serve HDR with its discovery requests. It is no surprise, therefore, that Walsh/Granite was unable to comply with the April 3, 2018 deadline set by the Court ninety days earlier, prompting it to move for a two-week extension of same. (Docket No. 107). In doing so, Walsh/Granite assured the Court that the extension, if granted, would not “interfere with any of the other summary judgment deadlines set by the Court in the January 3, 2018 Order, including the hearing schedule for June 8, 2018.” (Docket No. 107 at 2); see also Lea v. PNC Bank, 2016 WL 738053, at *3 (W.D. Pa. 2016) (“a party is bound by the actions and omissions of its chosen counsel”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(1) and 26(g)(1). Yet, just one week after the Court granted its Motion and stated that no further enlargements would be granted, (Docket No. 109), Walsh/Granite filed the pending Motion to postpone all of the deadlines in the Court's January 3, 2018 Order. (Docket No. 123); see also Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co., 81 F.3d 355, 358 (3d Cir. 1996) (“absent any good explanation, a party should not be allowed to gain an advantage by litigation on one theory, and then seek an inconsistent advantage by pursuing an incompatible theory”) (quoting 18 Charles A. Wright, Miller & Cooper, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 4477 (1981), p. 782). In this Court's estimation, such conduct, when viewed as a whole, is either an attempt to obtain reconsideration of the Court's January 3, 2018 Order which is woefully late or an attempt to circumvent that Order in an effort to achieve what it wants, i.e., full-blown discovery on all issues then motions practice.
Despite Walsh/Granite's dilatory conduct, the Court has enlarged the expedited discovery period, as set forth above, because the Court finds that HDR had an independent duty to produce the requested documents to Walsh/Granite as part of its Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, which the Court ordered to be made by October 20, 2017 and to be supplemented with due diligence thereafter. (Docket No. 63). Indeed, seven full months have passed since the Court held its Case Management Conference,  (Docket No. 60), and the Court is concerned that the parties have not complied with the spirit of Rule 26(a)(1), as amended. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1). In this Court's opinion, litigants now have a duty under Rule 26(a)(1) to make full-bodied disclosures, meaning that they should fully produce any and all non-privileged documents with respect to their claims and/or defenses, rather than merely identifying them on a list, regardless of whether the opposing party sends a formal request for production pursuant to Rule 34. Id.; see also Dietz v. Bouldin, U.S., 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1893 (2016) (“district courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases”).Hence, the parties shall follow such practice for the remainder of the discovery period. Further, given the parties' continuing disputes, Special Master Shepard has been appointed to keep them on task.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4477
 v.