Summary
interpreting analogous Superior Court rule
Summary of this case from Tex. Pac. Land Corp. v. Horizon Kinetics LLCOpinion
C.A. N21C-11-055 DJB N20C-06-231 DJB
10-30-2023
JAMIE YOUNCE, Individually and as Guardian ad litem for her child S.Y., Plaintiff, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC, Defendant. v. SUZANNE KNAUER, Individually and as Guardian ad litem for her child S.K., Plaintiff, v. v. v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC, Defendant.
Submitted: September 28, 2023
On Defendant 's Motion to Establish a Bifurcated Scheduling Order - DENIED.
ORDER
DANIELLE J. BRENNAN, JUDGE.
This 30th day of October, 2023, having considered Defendant's Motion to Establish the Trial Scheduling Order, each respective Plaintiffs' Responses, oral arguments of counsel and the record in this matter; it appears to the Court that:
1. This suit arises out of each respective Plaintiff's use of the prescription drug Paxil during pregnancy. While each case will be ultimately tried and decided separately, for purposes of this motion, the cases were heard together as the same issue is presented.
Knauer v. Glaxosmithkline, C. A. No. N21C-11-055 DJB, D.I.; Younce v. Glaxosmithkline, C. A. No. N21C-11-055 DJB, D.I. 53.
2. Early in the litigation, a motion to dismiss was filed in each case, and each motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Subsequently and as a result of the motions, respective amended complaints and answers were filed. Thereafter, the cases became ripe for a trial scheduling order to be issued.
Knauer v. Glaxosmithkline, LLC., 2022 WL 18359403 (Del. Super. Ct. 2022), D.I. 102; Younce v. Glaxosmithkline, LLC., 2022 WL 18359405 (Del. Super. Ct. 2022); D.I.49.
3. In the midst of counsel's correspondence with Chambers to establish a trial scheduling order, the instant motion was filed. Defendants request a bifurcated trial scheduling order, one which initially addresses and sets deadlines for general causation discovery and dispositive motions, and following dispositive rulings on any dispositive motions, case specific discovery and motion practice would be had, if necessary. Defendants cite judicial economy and have represented that a similar case in New York has proceeded in this fashion due to the issues presented. Plaintiffs opposition lies in the fact that Defendant has failed to articulate the necessity and judicial economy served by a bifurcated trial scheduling order, and states that on the contrary, such a scheduling order would be inefficient and prejudicial to their case. Plaintiffs additionally assert that there are factual differences that distinguish the need for such an order in the New York case, which are not presented here.
Knaurer D.I. 94; Younce D.I. 42;
Younce, D.I. 42,48, 53; Knauer, D.I. 94, 98, 102.
Younce, D.I. 42,48, 53; Knauer, D.I. 94, 98, 102.
4. Both parties acknowledge that the Court has broad discretion in resolving scheduling issues and control over docket management.
Sammons v. Doctors for Emergency Services, P.A., 913 A.2d 519, 528-529 (Del. 2006); Goode v. Bayhealth Medical Center, 2007 WL 2050761, at *3 (Del. 2007).
5. In exercising this discretion, the Court is not persuaded by that judicial economy is best served with a bifurcated scheduling order. No reason has been presented to the Court that would justify deviating from its normal course of action. These cases are not so extraordinarily unique that a bifurcated schedule is necessary here. And while there are two similarly situated plaintiffs, the number of plaintiffs is not so great that undue time and effort on the parties or the Court would be expended handling these cases in the normal fashion. Accordingly, there is no compelling reason why both general and case specific dispositive motions cannot be presented simultaneously, which would streamline the handling of these cases.
6. Therefore, the Motion for a bifurcated trial scheduling order is DENIED. Counsel is to reach out to chambers to continue submit their proposals for dates in their respective trial scheduling orders with the understanding that trial in the Younce matter will proceed on July 28, 2025, and the Knaurer matter will proceed on January 26, 2026, as previously scheduled.
D.I. 39.
IT SO ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2023.