United States District Court, D. Arizona
Allen F. Scotto, Plaintiff,
Gorilla Ladder Company, a Minnesota corporation also known as Gorilla Ladders, et al., Defendants.
G. Campbell, Senior United States District Judge.
case has a troubling history. The parties repeatedly have
disregarded Court orders, and the Court has concluded that
action is required.
case was removed to federal court on August 23, 2017. Doc. 1.
The Court set a case management conference for October 3,
2017, and required the parties to file a Rule 26(f) report.
Doc. 7. The report proposed a schedule that included
Plaintiff's expert disclosures on January 12, 2018,
defense expert disclosures on March 30, 2018, and rebuttal
expert disclosures on May 14, 2018. Doc. 17 at 2. The
Court's Case Management Order adopted this schedule.
See Doc. 19 at 2.
order imposed some additional specific requirements. It
provided this direction on the content of expert reports:
As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 26 (1993
Amendments), expert reports under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) must set
forth “the testimony the witness is expected to present
during direct examination, together with the reasons
therefor.” Full and complete disclosures of such
testimony are required on the dates set forth above; absent
extraordinary circumstances, parties will not be permitted to
supplement expert reports after these dates.
Id. at 3. The Case Management Order also stated that
“The Deadlines Are Real, ” and advised the
parties “that the Court intends to enforce the
deadlines.” Id. at 5.
did not make expert disclosures on January 12, 2018, but
instead sought an extension to February 7, 2018. Doc. 26. The
Court granted the extension and set the deadline for
Plaintiff's expert disclosures on February 7, 2018, and
for defense expert disclosures on April 25, 2018. Doc. 28.
The Court specifically stated that it was “not inclined
to grant further extensions to the deadlines contained in the
Case Management Order absent truly extraordinary
than file expert reports on February 7, 2018, Plaintiff
sought a two-month extension to April 7, 2018. Doc. 30.
Plaintiff's motion stated that “destructive
testing” of the ladder in question may be necessary.
Id. at 2. The motion explained that Plaintiff's
counsel had been advised of the need for destructive testing
on January 26, 2018. Id. at 5. The motion attached
an expert affidavit stating that destructive testing likely
was necessary. Doc. 30-1 at 5.
never responded to the motion, and never sought an extension
of their expert disclosure deadline of April 25, 2018. The
Court granted the extension, and Plaintiff served his expert
report on April 6, 2018. See Doc. 55-1.
did not comply with their April 25, 2018 expert disclosure
deadline, and never sought an extension. Indeed, when the
parties exchanged motion for summary judgment letters in June
2018 - after the close of all discovery in this case -
Defendants still had not produced an expert report. During a
telephone conference with the Court on July 11, 2018, the
parties advised the Court that Defendants' expert report
was served on July 3, 2018, more than two months after the
Court's deadline. Doc. 49.
than imposing sanctions at that time, the Court set a
schedule to get this case through summary judgment. The Court
ordered that Plaintiff serve a rebuttal expert report by July
27, 2018, and set a deadline for Defendants' motion for
summary judgment of August 10, 2018. Id.
parties disregarded these dates. Plaintiff's expert
disclosure was not made until August 20, 2018. Doc. 55 at 3.
No extension for of the report deadline was sought from the
Court, and the report stated that it was “preliminary,
” despite the Case Management Order's specific
requirement that expert disclosures be full and complete.
Doc. 19 at 3.
disregarded the August 10, 2018 deadline for their summary
judgment motion, filing it more than a month late on