Opinion ID: 1960144
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Enlargement of Time to Designate Expert Witnesses

Text: [¶ 7] Parties are required to disclose information regarding expert witnesses expected to testify pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A)(i). In this case, the court required that the parties designate their expert witnesses by February 11, 1999. Nevertheless, M.R. Civ. P. 6(b) authorizes the court to enlarge the time within which an act is required or allowed to be done, including the time for designating witnesses. If a party moves to enlarge the time to complete an act after the deadline for the act has passed, however, he must be able to show that his failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. [¶ 8] In this case, Johnson did not designate any expert witnesses prior to the February 11 deadline, nor did he move, pursuant to Rule 6(b), to enlarge the time within which to do so prior to that date. In an attempt to justify his late designation of expert witnesses, Johnson argues that the scheduling order that required him to designate witnesses by February 11 prematurely conformed to the 1999 amendments to the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure rather than the 1998 version of the rules that were in effect when Johnson filed his complaint. Specifically, M.R. Civ. P. 16 was amended in 1999 to require the court to enter a scheduling order setting pretrial deadlines; the form scheduling order accompanying Rule 16 provided for witness designation within twelve weeks, or sixty days. The 1999 amendments were effective as of May 1, 1999, after Johnson's complaint was filed in October of 1998, and were not applicable to Johnson's case. Thus, Johnson contends, the court erred in holding him to the sixty day deadline that he argues was intended instead for cases filed after his. We disagree. [¶ 9] We are not convinced that the amendments to Rule 16 had any impact on Johnson's late filing. Prior to the 1999 amendments, trial courts routinely set discovery deadlines, including the deadline for designation of expert witnesses. Johnson raised no objection to the trial court's order in this case requiring him to name his expert witnesses within sixty days. He acknowledges his failure to comply with the clear terms of the order. Furthermore, he did not move for an enlargement of time until months after that deadline had passed. [¶ 10] Whether to grant or deny a motion for enlargement of time is the decision of the trial court. That court is best positioned to evaluate the circumstances of the case, and its decision is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Lane v. Williams, 521 A.2d 706, 707 (Me. 1987). We have emphasized the need for compliance with pretrial orders, and have stated that sanctions are appropriate when conduct frustrates the beneficent purposes of discovery orders.... Spickler v. York, 566 A.2d 1385, 1388 (Me.1989). In this case, Johnson's conduct did just that, and he has offered nothing that would compel the trial court to conclude that his failure to comply with the order was the result of excusable neglect. Accordingly, the court acted within its discretion in denying the motion for enlargement of time to designate expert witnesses. [4]