Opinion
Civil Action 19-903-KSM
06-17-2022
ORDER
KAREN SPENCER MARSTON, J.
AND NOW this 17th day of June, 2022, following a telephone conference with the parties on June 16, 2022, and for the reasons outlined in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to Deposition Questions (Doc. No. 119) and Defendants' opposition brief (Doc. No. 121), it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
2. Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Doc. No. 120), Defendants' opposition brief (Doc. No. 123), and Plaintiffs' reply brief (Doc. No. 126), it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
3. Upon consideration of Defendants' Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 122) and Plaintiffs' opposition brief (Doc. No. 125), it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall amend their initial disclosures and provide complete responses to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 6, and 7 by June 22, 2022.
4. Upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Mental Examination of Plaintiffs Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 (Doc. No. 127), Plaintiffs' letter opposition (Doc. No. 128), and Defendants' letter reply (Doc. No. 129), it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
During the June 16 telephone conference, the Court ordered Plaintiffs' counsel to confer with her clients by the end of the day and provide their availability to defense counsel. Both parties were then directed to send the Court a status update by 12:00 p.m. on June 17 with the dates of the IMEs. At the close of business on June 16, Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Court that she had reached out to her clients but was still waiting to hear back from them. She also noted that “after our teleconference, American gave me with [sic] a limited number of dates their expert is available. I am not certain my clients will also be available at those times.” The Court reminds counsel that Plaintiffs are the ones who have failed to provide dates in response to defense counsel's numerous requests for availability, and as this Court has reiterated, we are not inclined to extend the discovery period any more than we must. Therefore, Plaintiffs must make themselves available on one of the dates given by defense counsel.
5. Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 124) and Defendants' response brief (Doc. No. 132), it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
6. Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' request for an extension of the discovery deadline (Doc. No. 128) and Defendants' opposition letter (Doc. No. 129), it is ORDERED that the request is DENIED with the limited exception that Plaintiffs shall provide a computation of damages and appear for independent medical examinations as outlined in this Order.
Plaintiffs also request to depose Dr. Stacey Tyler after the deadline. The Court defers ruling on this request until after the parties' mediation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.