Watt v. All Clear Business Solutions, LLC
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4501
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- Watt sued All Clear for negligence after a filing cabinet injured him during unloading, seeking medical expenses and economic losses.
- Discovery deadlines were set, extended twice, with final deadline April 11, 2011; discovery later reported as complete.
- Watt sought to reopen discovery to designate an economic expert, Dr. Richard Lurito, to project present value of future medical costs.
- All Clear opposed, arguing late timing and potential trial-delay; Magistrate Judge Kay recommended granting the motion.
- The court held there was good cause to reopen discovery for a limited purpose, granting Watt 15 days to designate and serve reports and 45 days to depose.
- A joint status report with proposed trial dates was required within 7 days after the Local Civil Rule 16.5(a)(3) Pretrial Order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good cause to reopen discovery? | Watt; argues limited reopening permits necessary expert projection and merits-based trial. | All Clear; argues late request and potential delay without justification. | Yes, with limits; good cause found for limited reopening. |
| Diligence in obtaining discovery? | Watt relied on anticipated settlement; did not diligently obtain expert designation earlier. | Watt had ample time; failed to pursue Dr. Lurito designation despite multiple extensions. | Factor weighs in Watt's favor overall due to need for the expert and absence of prejudice. |
| Prejudice to All Clear from reopening? | Limited scope would not materially prejudice trial preparation; no trial date set. | Reopening inherently delays trial and adds complexity. | No significant prejudice shown; reopening granted for limited purpose. |
Key Cases Cited
- Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs., Inc., 630 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (good-cause standard for modifying scheduling orders)
- Childers v. Slater, 197 F.R.D. 185 (D.D.C. 2000) (factors for reopening discovery and discretion of trial court)
- Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166 (10th Cir. 1987) (considerations for discovery-related relief and diligence)
- Vineberg v. Bissonnette, 548 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2008) (six-factor framework for discovery reopening)
- Trebor Sportswear Co., Inc. v. The Limited Stores, Inc., 865 F.2d 506 (2d Cir. 1989) (considerations on discovery and non-dispositive issues)