Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:99-CV-2931-L
May 7, 2001
ORDER
Before the court are Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings, filed April 4, 2001 (the "first motion"), and Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings, filed April 5, 2001 (the "second motion"). No response to either motion was filed. The deadline for motions requesting amendment of pleadings was January 2, 2001, and the case is set for trial on the court's four week docket beginning June 4, 2001. Although Defendant's counsel did not communicate a position on the motions, he advised (upon inquiry by the court's law clerk) that he did not oppose amendment of the complaint if the trial were continued for three months to allow additional discovery and/or preparation. Plaintiffs' counsel advised (upon inquiry by the court's law clerk) that Plaintiffs would prefer a continuance rather than proceed with the current trial setting but without the proposed amendment to their complaint. The court therefore grants the first motion, and denies as moot the second motion. The clerk is directed to file Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. The court also sua sponte continues the trial as set forth below.
Plaintiffs seek recovery of income tax refunds for the individual Plaintiffs that were allegedly improperly withheld and offset against tax liabilities of the corporate Plaintiff. The original complaint covered refunds for the tax years 1994 and 1995. Plaintiffs now seek to amend the complaint to add the refund for the tax year 1996, for which the required administrative claim was deemed denied on March 20, 2001. The court assumes, based on a brief review of the file, that the bulk of the contested questions of fact and law will not concern details of the 1996 tax return for the individual Plaintiffs. If so, there should not be any need for significant additional discovery or preparation time for either party. The court nevertheless is reluctant to allow amendment of pleadings this close to trial without a continuance when the opposing party claims such a need for additional discovery and preparation.
The court therefore grants Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint and also sua sponte continues the trial with the following deadlines revised from those established in its Amended Scheduling Order of October 3, 2000:
1. The trial setting, previously scheduled for the court's four week docket beginning June 4, 2001, is reset for the court's four week docket beginning November 5, 2001. Counsel and the parties must be ready for trial on two (2) days notice at any time during this four-week period, unless the court allows otherwise at the pretrial conference. Any potential conflicts must be called to the attention of the court in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this order.
2. Pretrial materials (joint pretrial order, witness list, exhibit list, designations of portions of depositions to be offered at trial, annotated proposed jury instructions, and proposed voir dire questions), previously due on May 14, 2001, shall be filed by October 15, 2001.
3. The settlement conference, previously required by no later than May 14, 2001, shall be conducted by no later than October 15, 2001.
4. Objections to pretrial materials (witnesses, exhibits, and designated deposition testimony) and motions in limine, previously due on May 25, 2001, shall be filed by October 26, 2001.
5. The pretrial conference, previously scheduled for 3:00 p.m. on May 31, 2001, is reset for November 1, 2001 at 10:00 a.m.
The above changes affect only the deadlines for the above items. The required substantive content of the submissions, as laid out in the court's Amended Scheduling Order, is unchanged.
The court desires to address and resolve before trial any challenges that testimony of expert witnesses fail to meet the standards of Fed.R.Evid. 702 and 703, as interpreted in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kuhmo Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). Such challenges often require time-consuming hearings outside the presence of the jury, and can seriously disrupt the trial if not resolved earlier. The parties are directed to file any such objections to, or motions to strike or exclude, expert testimony no later than August 6, 2001.
It is so ordered.