Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Haines v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


July 27, 2006

ERNEST EDWIN HAINES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Donald G. Wilkerson United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint filed by the defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Company, on July 14, 2006 (Doc. 14) and the Motion for Extension of Time filed by the plaintiff, Ernest Edwin Haines, on July 20, 2006 (Doc. 15). For the reasons set forth below, the motion for leave to file is GRANTED and the Motion for extension of time is DENIED.

Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint

The defendant seeks to file a third party complaint against R & G, Inc. for contribution and indemnity. The deadline for filing third party complaints has not expired. The defendant SHALL file its third party complaint by July 31, 2006.

Motion for Extension of Time

The plaintiff seeks to extend the deadline for disclosing his expert. In the Scheduling Order entered on April 13, 2006 (Doc. 11), the deadline for plaintiff's expert disclosures was set for May 31, 2006. This motion was filed almost 2 months later. The plaintiff offers no reason why he waited to seek an extension or why he waited to seek out an expert in light of the deadline. The plaintiff only vaguely asserts that "the Plaintiff was not aware that the expert, Rolly Mulligan, certified arborist, was available to testify as an expert in the value of trees until the deadline to disclose all expert witnesses had passed." There is no indication of why the plaintiff was unaware or why he did not seek out another expert. The plaintiff also then seeks until August 15, 2006 to "fully disclose all relevant information regarding this expert." August 15, 2006 is after the defendant's expert disclosure deadline and beyond the time set for the deposition of the plaintiff's expert.

The plaintiff has not made the necessary showing of good cause as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). Indeed, the defendant will be prejudiced if the plaintiff is allowed to name an expert and provide expert reports after its own deadlines for deposing the expert have passed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint filed by the defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Company, on July 14, 2006 is GRANTED (Doc. 14) and the Motion for Extension of Time filed by the plaintiff, Ernest Edwin Haines, on July 20, 2006 is DENIED (Doc. 15). Defendant to file its third party complaint by July 31, 2006.

20060727

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.