United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville
JAMES H. POGUE PLAINTIFF
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY DEFENDANT
Charles R. Simpson III, Senior Judge United States District
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff James H. Pogue's
objection to the magistrate judge's amended scheduling
order. Pl.'s Obj., ECF No. 99. Defendant Northwestern
Mutual Life Insurance Company (“Northwestern
Mutual”) moved for leave to file a response in
opposition to Pogue's objection. Def.'s Mot., ECF No.
101. For the following reasons, Pogue's objection will be
overruled and Northwestern Mutual's motion for leave to
file a response will be denied as moot.
moved to extend the deadlines for expert disclosure, rebuttal
expert disclosure, and discovery. Pl.'s Mot. Extension
Time, ECF No. 46. Pogue argued that his “ability to
prepare his case has been hampered by his inability to take
the [Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Northwestern Mutual's]
designated representative.” Id. at 1. The
magistrate judge granted the motion in part and denied the
motion in part. June 1, 2016 Op. & Order, ECF No. 71. The
magistrate judge granted an extension for the completion of
select discovery matters, in part to allow Pogue to conduct
his Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on Northwestern Mutual.
Id. at 12. The magistrate judge also found that if
the parties need additional discovery as a result of the
permitted depositions, the parties must submit a request
through a telephonic conference. Id. at 13. The
magistrate judge extended the deadline for rebuttal expert
disclosure to June 24, 2016. Id. Finally, the
magistrate judge denied Pogue's request for an extended
deadline for expert disclosure. Id. Pogue objected
to the magistrate judge's partial denial of his motion.
Pl.'s Obj. to Op. & Order, ECF No. 77.
magistrate judge stayed this action pending resolution of
Pogue's objections and ordered the parties to jointly
file a proposed scheduling order within ten days of this
Court's resolution on the objections. June 23, 2016 Op.
& Order, ECF No. 85. This Court overruled Pogue's
objection to the magistrate judge's partial denial of his
motion for an extension. July 8, 2016 Order, ECF No. 90.
Pogue and Northwestern Mutual filed separate proposed
scheduling orders, ECF No. 93, 94. In his proposed scheduling
order, Pogue proposed that “Plaintiff shall disclose
any rebuttal expert(s) no later than October 31, 2016,
” despite this Court having overruled his objection to
the June 24, 2016 deadline. Proposed Sched. Order 1, ECF No.
94. The magistrate judge entered an amended scheduling order
setting the deadline for rebuttal experts on August 8, 2016.
Am. Sched. Order 2, ECF No. 96. The magistrate judge pointed
out that in submitting his proposed order, Pogue “yet
again - appears to attempt to circumvent previous orders of
this Court regarding the deadline for disclosing rebuttal
experts. This is unacceptable.” Id. The
magistrate judge explained,
Pogue has consistently pressed for a 60-day extension of the
deadline for his disclosure of rebuttal experts. The
undersigned granted him a much shorter extension of time to
do so, and that short extension was upheld by Judge Simpson.
(See DN 89 at 3-4.) Ignoring those previous rulings,
Pogue now seeks to extend the rebuttal expert deadline to
October 31, 2016, some 115 days after the entry of Judge
Simpson's order overruling Pogue's objections and 105
days after the filing of Pogue's proposed scheduling
order. Pogue's attempt is in direct contravention of the
Court's rulings on this issue.
Id. at 2 n.3. In addition to the deadline for
rebuttal experts, Pogue also proposed earlier deadlines for
supplemental disclosures, completion of discovery, and
dispositive motions than were adopted by the magistrate
judge. Proposed Sched. Order 1, ECF No. 94; Am. Sched. Order
2, ECF No. 96. Pogue now objects to the amended scheduling
order. Pl.'s Obj., ECF No. 99.
objection, Pogue “submits his ability to fairly prepare
his case, notably his right to obtain discovery, has been
substantially prejudiced.” Id. at 1. As in his
original motion and his objection to the magistrate
judge's opinion and order, Pogue blames this inability to
prepare on Northwestern Mutual having filed a motion for a
protective order in response to his notice of the 30(b)(6)
deposition of Northwestern Mutual. Id. at 1, 3;
see also Pl.'s Mot. Extension Time 1, ECF No.
46; Pl.'s Obj. to Op. & Order 1, ECF No. 77. Pogue
further blames the magistrate judge for the “lengthy
delay in addressing Defendant's motion for a protective
order.” Pl.'s Obj. 4, ECF No. 99. Pogue asserts
that, “[a]s the discovery deadline was approaching, and
given that the Magistrate Judge had not yet addressed
Defendant's motion for a protective order, [he] filed a
motion to extend the scheduling deadlines.”
Id. at 2. Pogue argues that his motion was timely
and that he was “simply trying to maintain the same
time he would have been entitled to had Defendant appeared
for the noticed 30(b)(6) deposition.” Id. at
3-4. Thus, he argues, he had “good cause” under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to receive an
extension of the scheduling deadlines. Id. at 3.
Pogue asks this Court to sustain his objections, set aside
the magistrate judge's amended scheduling order, and
enter a scheduling order that allows him “his requested
time to complete his discovery.” Id. at 4.
nondispositive matters, such as discovery issues and
scheduling orders, the “district judge in the case must
consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part
of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The magistrate judge's
amended scheduling order is neither clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law. Pogue presents no new arguments than those
which this Court has already considered and rejected.
See June 16, 2016 Mem. Op., ECF No. 79; July 8, 2016
Mem. Op., ECF No. 89. In fact, Pogue's objection to the
amended scheduling order objects to the exact same
scheduling determinations that this Court has already upheld.
July 8, 2016 Mem. Op., ECF No. 89. In the July 8 opinion,
this Court reiterated that Northwestern Mutual's motion
for a protective order was proper, addressing Pogue's
argument that Northwestern Mutual has somehow impeded his
ability to obtain discovery. Id. at 2. This Court
also determined that “Pogue could have easily moved for
an extension of time while awaiting the magistrate
judge's ruling on the protective order, ”
addressing Pogue's excuse for not moving for an extension
sooner. Id. at 3. Finally, this Court has already
addressed whether the “good cause” standard
applies and whether “good cause” exists to extend
these deadlines. Id. at 2-4. Because Pogue has
offered no new arguments to change the Court's position,
his objection will be overruled.
Court will overrule Pogue's objection without having
relied on Northwestern Mutual's proposed response. Thus,
this Court will deny Northwestern Mutual's motion for
leave to file a response in opposition ...