Opinion
Case No. 07-C-223, Case No. 07-C-732.
December 17, 2007
ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION
On March 7, 2007, the plaintiff, Christopher T. Tomlinson ("Tomlinson"), filed a suit against the defendant, Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc. ("Roundy's"), alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The clerk of court assigned the case number 07-C-223 (hereinafter referred to as " Tomlinson I"), and the case was randomly assigned to this court. On June 14, 2007, the court issued a scheduling order to govern the processing of Tomlinson I. The court amended the original scheduling order on September 14, 2007 and again on September 26, 2007.
On August 13, 2007, Tomlinson filed a second suit against Roundy's, alleging that Roundy's retaliated against him for filing an ADA charge against it with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The clerk of court assigned the case number 07-C-732 (hereinafter referred to as " Tomlinson II"), and the case was assigned to this court. The court has not yet issued a scheduling order to govern the processing of Tomlinson II.
Throughout the defendant's motion to consolidate, the defendant inadvertently refers to case number 07-C-732 as 07-C-723. However, it is clear to the court that the defendant wishes to consolidate case numbers 07-C-223 and 07-C-732.
On December 13, 2007, the defendant filed a motion to consolidate Tomlinson I and Tomlinson II.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that
[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
Consolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and judicial economy, and the court is given broad discretion to determine whether consolidation is appropriate. Fleishman v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 103 F.R.D. 623, 624 (E.D. Wis. 1984).
The court finds that consolidation is appropriate in this instance. Here, both Tomlinson I and Tomlinson II involve the same plaintiff and defendant and are premised on the same factual and legal allegations. Specifically, the cases address whether Roundy's properly responded to Tomlinson's allegations of harrassment and whether Roundy's retaliated against him for filing an EEOC charge premised on those allegations of harassment. As a matter of judicial economy, it makes sense to consolidate these proceedings. Additionally, because both cases share similar questions of law and fact, the court will order the Tomlinson I scheduling order, as amended, to govern the processing of the consolidated cases.
Furthermore, Civil Local Rule 42.1(b) provides that, "[w]hen two or more cases are consolidated, all documents relevant to the purposes for which consolidation was granted will thereafter be docketed only on the docket sheet for the lowest numbered of the consolidated cases." Accordingly, the parties are directed to file all documents concerning the now-consolidated cases 07-C-223 and 07-C-732 in case number 07-C-223.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion to consolidate be and hereby is GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second amended scheduling order for 07-C-223 shall govern the processing of now-consolidated cases 07-C-223 and 07-C-732. For the convenience of the parties, a copy of the second amended scheduling order in case number 07-C-223 is attached to the instant order.
SO ORDERED.
SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
On June 14, 2007, the court conducted a scheduling order in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 and Civil L.R. 16.1. Based on the scheduling conference, the court issued a scheduling order on the same day.On June 29, 2007, the court ordered the parties to appear before United States Magistrate Judge Patricia J. Gorence for mediation. The parties did so on September 11, 2007 but were unable to settle the case. Accordingly, on September 13, 2007, Judge Gorence ordered the case back to this court for further proceedings.
In light of the mediation order and subsequent mediation hearing, the court amended the original scheduling order on September 14, 2007, allowing the parties until September 25, 2007 to make their Rule 26(a) Fed.R.Civ.P. initial disclosures.
On September 24, 2007, the plaintiff moved the court to amend all the discovery dates in the original scheduling order to restore the time lost while the parties were attempting to mediate. The court will grant the plaintiff's motion and the amended scheduling order shall stand as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
1. The plaintiff shall disclose all expert witnesses (including in-house experts), in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2) Fed.R.Civ.P. and Civil L.R. 26.1 no later than January 10, 2008.
2. The defendant shall disclose all expert witnesses (including in-house experts), in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2) Fed.R.Civ.P. and Civil L.R. 26.1 no later than March 17, 2007.
3. All discovery is to be completed in accordance with Civil L.R. 26.2 by May 12, 2008.
4. All dispositive motions, together with briefs, are to be filed in accordance with Civil L.R. 56.1 and 56.2, and no later than May 26, 2008. In all cases, including those which have been designated for electronic filing, counsel are to provide paper copies of all dispositive motions, such as motions for summary judgment and motions to dismiss, along with supporting documentation directly to the judge's chambers. Such copies are to be clearly marked "COPY" on the first page of each document submitted. In addition, the parties are hereby directed to either file a 3.5" IBM-compatible disk or CD containing the proposed findings of fact and any responses thereto, as called for under Civil L.R. 56.2, or, in the alternative, to e-mail such proposed findings of fact and responses thereto in Word Perfect or Word format to CallahanPO@wied.uscourts.gov.
5. A scheduling conference will be conducted on Monday, June 2, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 253 of the U.S. Courthouse, 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53202. If there are unresolved summary judgment motions at that time, the scheduling conference will be cancelled.