From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Potter v. Bowman

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Mar 28, 2006
Civil Action No. 05-cv-00827-REB-PAC (D. Colo. Mar. 28, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-cv-00827-REB-PAC.

March 28, 2006


ORDER on Motion for Reconsideration


This is a medical malpractice case. Pretrial case management was referred to the undersigned in a May 5, 2005 Order of Reference. Doc. #2. The matter now before the court is the Unopposed Motion of Debra Bowman, M.D. for Reconsideration of March 22, 2006 Order Denying Motion Extension [sic] of Time to Submit Expert Disclosures on Damages [Docket No. 71], Doc. # 72.

As grounds for her motion, Dr. Bowman argues that the Court either misunderstood Dr. Bowman's motion for extension of time or misapprehended the identify of Dr. Bowman's experts. Misapprehension of a party's position can constitute proper grounds warranting reconsideration. See Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F. 3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir 2000). Here, however, the court did not misapprehend or misunderstand Dr. Bowman's position. Rather, the Court could not determine Dr. Bowman's position because, instead of explaining that she planned on using the same damages experts as Health One, Dr. Bowman simply incorporated by reference another defendant's motion for extension of time. See Doc. # 68. That defendant's motion was made solely on behalf of Health One and did not refer to any other defendant. See Doc. # 63. Accordingly, it was not possible for the court to ascertain from either motion whether Dr. Bowman planned on using the same damages expert to be endorsed by HealthOne, and whether she met Rule 16(b)'s good cause standard, and therefore, the court has no obligation to revisit nor to change its March 22, 2006 Minute Order.

Now that Dr. Bowman has made clear, however, that she will be "using the very same experts that her co-Defendant is using," Bowman Motion for Reconsideration ¶ 8, and explains for the first time that she needs an extension of time because she is using the same experts, she has met the "good cause" requirement of Rule 16(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. Consequently, despite her inadequate pleading, to avoid any prejudice to Dr. Bowman which may result if she lacked a damages expert at trial, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion of Debra Bowman, M.D., for Reconsideration of March 22, 2006 Order Denying Motion Extension of Time to Submit Expert Disclosures on Damages [Docket No. 71], Doc. # 72 is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that the March 22, 2006 Order is VACATED. It is further

ORDERED that Defendant Bowman shall have the same deadlines to provide damages expert information as were granted to HealthOne on March 13, 2006. See Doc. 65.


Summaries of

Potter v. Bowman

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Mar 28, 2006
Civil Action No. 05-cv-00827-REB-PAC (D. Colo. Mar. 28, 2006)
Case details for

Potter v. Bowman

Case Details

Full title:BRYCE POTTER, a minor, by and through her parents and next friends, LAURA…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Mar 28, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 05-cv-00827-REB-PAC (D. Colo. Mar. 28, 2006)