Case No.: 08-80561-Civ-Cohn/Seltzer.United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division.
December 22, 2008
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DISCLOSE WITNESS ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER MEDIATION BEFORE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JAMES COHN, District Judge
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Disclosure, or, Alternatively, for Leave to Disclose an Additional Witness Out of Time and to Extend the Fact Discovery Deadline [DE 29] and Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance [DE 33]. The Court has carefully considered the motions, responses and reply thereto, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
I. MOTION TO STRIKE OR TO DISCLOSE LATE WITNESS AND EXTEND DISCOVERY
Defendant filed a motion seeking to either strike late witness disclosure of Plaintiffs or to allow its own late witness disclosure and extend the discovery period to allow for depositions of these late disclosed witnesses. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that the nature of the witnesses’ testimony commands that the two late disclosures be handled differently.
Fact discovery in this personal injury case closed on Friday, November 14, 2008.
Page 2
The following Wednesday, Plaintiff disclosed an additional two witnesses, family members of Plaintiffs, who were to testify regarding pain and suffering damages. Six business days later (after the Thanksgiving holiday weekend), Defendant disclosed a new witness, Adria Marallo, a management level employee of Defendant. Both sides’ reason for the late witness disclosure rests solely on counsel’s belief that the merits of their respective cases needed more evidentiary support. Thus, neither side has a valid reason for the late disclosure.
However, under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must look to potential prejudice of striking a witness, even one disclosed after the discovery deadline. Plaintiffs argue that merely adding an additional two pain and suffering witnesses does not present any surprise to Defendant and will not lead to any need for further discovery. On the other hand, Plaintiffs assert that allowing Defendant to now bring in a management level employee to testify opens up additional areas for discovery and is prejudicial to Plaintiff. Defendant relies on the argument that either both sides late witnesses are stricken or allowed.
The other pending motion that is relevant to a determination of the relative prejudice of these late disclosures is Plaintiffs’ motion for a four month continuance. Defendant does not oppose the motion for continuance and cites its filing as a reason to allow both late disclosures given the additional time available for depositions if the continuance is granted.
The Court concludes that although Plaintiff has a valid point that not all late disclosed witnesses should necessarily be treated the same, under the circumstances of
Page 3
this case and the Court’s granting of Plaintiff’s motion for continuance, the Court will grant not strike Plaintiff’s witnesses and will grant Defendant’s motion for leave to add its late witness. The Court will extend fact discovery until January 31, 2009, solely for the purposes of any discovery directed at these three late witnesses (written discovery requests due by January 9, 2009).[1] No other deadline is extended.
II. MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Plaintiffs seek a four month continuance due to counsel’s busy trial schedule of older and more complex state court actions. Plaintiffs’ lead counsel has two separate four to six week trials set in February and April of 2009. Defendant does not oppose the motion.
The Court will grant the motion, though Plaintiffs’ request for a June 1 trial setting conflicts with this Court’s availability in early June. The Court will reset the trial for Calendar Call on June 18, 2009.
III. FURTHER MEDIATION REQUIRED
Upon a review of the docket, it appears that the parties filed a joint statement stating that they attended mediation at the outset of this case on June 6, 2008 [DE 10]. Given the pending completion of discovery and the extended trial continuance, the Court directs the parties to attend a further mediation before United States Magistrate Judge Peter Palermo in Miami, Florida. Given Plaintiff’s counsel’s schedule, this mediation can
Page 4
presumably take place in late March of 2009, in between counsel’s conflicts, but the Court only directs that such a settlement conference take place prior to May 29, 2009.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.