Opinion
Civil Action Nos. 00-2292-KHV, 00-2297-CM.
March 30, 2001.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the following Motions to Consolidate these two cases: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate filed in Case No. 00-2292-KHV (hereinafter referred to as the "Watson Case") (doc. 31), and (2) Defendants' Motion to Consolidate filed in Case No. 00-2297-CM (hereinafter referred to as the "Christensen Case") (doc. 13). The Motion to Consolidate filed in the Christensen Case is unopposed, while the Motion to Consolidate filed in the Watson case is opposed by Defendants Dr. Edgardo Francisco, Horton Health Foundation, the Northeast Kansas Center for Health and Wellness, Inc., Linda Becker, Kenneth Robinson, and Dustin Williams (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Medical Defendants").
I. Background Information
These cases arise out of a motor vehicle accident involving Dana Christensen and five children. The Christensen Case is brought by the heirs of Dana Christensen against the Board of Commissioners of Brown County, the Brown County Sheriff, and two Brown County Sheriff's officers (collectively referred to as the "County Defendants"). The Watson Case is brought by the estates of Meigin and Hali Watson, the legal guardians of Ryan Graves, and the heir and parent of Brenden and Jessie Tucker. In both cases, Plaintiffs assert the same nine causes of action against the County Defendants. See Counts I — IX. Those causes of action are for the deprivation of constitutional rights and for negligence and other state law claims. In the Watson Case, Plaintiffs assert an additional cause of action against the Medical Defendants. See Count X. That cause of action asserts that the Medical Defendants committed medical malpractice in connection with providing medical treatment to Ryan Graves immediately following the accident.
The Plaintiffs in the Christensen Case are represented by Ronald P. Pope, while the Plaintiffs in the Watson Case are represented by William J. Pauzauskie. The County Defendants are represented by the same counsel in both cases.
The Medical Defendants oppose consolidation, arguing that their actions were "distinct and separate in time and location from those of the County Defendants." Doc. 34 at 2. They also argue that consolidation is not proper because the claims asserted in the Christensen Case — which are asserted only against the County Defendants — are not contingent on the claims asserted against the Medical Defendants in the Watson Case. In addition, the Medical Defendants argue that consolidation would insert additional Plaintiffs (the heirs of Dana Christensen) and counsel (the attorneys for Mr. Christensen's heirs) into the Watson case, creating confusion and causing unnecessary delay and expense for the Medical Defendants.
II. Standard for Determining a Motion to Consolidate
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court to consolidate "any or all the matters in issue in the actions" if the actions involve a "common question of law or fact." The decision whether to consolidate such actions is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978). In exercising its discretion, the court should take into consideration whether judicial efficiency is best served by consolidation. Johnson v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, No. 99-2407-JWL, 1999 WL 1096038, at *1 (D.Kan. Nov. 16, 1999); Fields v. Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Ry. Co., No. 95-4026-DES, 1996 WL 109536, at *1 (D.Kan. Feb. 7, 1996).
III. Application of the Standard to this Case
The Court is not persuaded by the Medical Defendants' arguments against consolidating the cases — at least for purposes of discovery and pretrial proceedings. The Court does not find that consolidation will cause confusion, delay, or significant added expense for the Medical Defendants. Consolidation would add only the heirs of Dana Christensen and their attorney to the Watson Case. No new counts will be added to the Watson case, since the nine claims asserted against the County Defendants in the Christensen case are also asserted against the County Defendants in the Watson case. It is not as if those nine counts are being added to the Watson case.
Furthermore, the factual and legal issues presented in both cases in connection with the nine counts asserted against the County Defendants will require the same discovery in both cases, subject only to some minor differences because of the different injuries and damages claimed for each Plaintiff. What slight additional expense or burden that may fall on the Medical Defendants if the cases are consolidated is far outweighed by the burden that will fall on the County Defendants if the cases are not consolidated for purposes of discovery. If the cases are not consolidated, the County Defendants will be required to defend themselves against nine counts in each of two separate cases and their burden will essentially be doubled. Each County Defendant would most likely be subjected to two depositions and possibly two sets of written discovery, from different Plaintiff's counsel. In addition, non-party witnesses, and possibly the Plaintiffs in each suit, would be subjected to two depositions.
For these various reasons, the Court finds that it would serve the interests of judicial economy to consolidate the cases for discovery and pretrial proceedings. The decision whether to consolidate the cases for trial will be reserved until the pretrial conference.
The Court notes that each of these two cases is set for a telephone scheduling conference on March 15, 2001 (the Christensen case at 3:00 p.m. and the Watson case at 3:30 p.m.). Given that these cases are being consolidated for all pretrial proceedings, the Court will hold one joint scheduling conference, to begin at 3:00 p.m .
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate filed in Case No. 00-2292-KHV (doc. 31) and Defendants' Motion to Consolidate filed in Case No. 00-2297-CM (doc. 13) are granted as to discovery and all pretrial proceedings. To the extent the Motions seek to consolidate the cases for trial, the Court will take the Motions under advisement until the final pretrial conference.
The individual telephone scheduling conferences scheduled for March 15, 2001 are hereby reset as a single, joint scheduling conference, to begin at 3:00 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.