Brinkman v. Summit Fire Protection Co.
- Tony Leung
- 0:19-cv-02981
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Brinkman v. Summit Fire Protection Co., Judge Leung denied Brinkman’s request to change briefing deadlines and denied her expert-discovery motion without prejudice.
The order directly affected Kimberly Brinkman’s expert-discovery motion and the September 29, 2021 hearing, and governed the ongoing case involving Sprinkler Fitters Local #417, Summit Fire Protection Co., and Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
What happened
In Brinkman v. Summit Fire Protection Co., Kimberly Brinkman asked to use a modified briefing schedule for her request to submit supplemental expert reports and extend the expert-discovery deadline.
The court’s scheduling order required expert-discovery motions and supporting documents to be filed and served by September 1, 2021. The court found that Brinkman did not file the materials together as required, did not discuss the requested schedule with opposing counsel beforehand, and did not show a sufficient reason for missing the deadline. Summit Fire Protection Co. and Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. objected and asked the court to strike the motion.
Judge Tony N. Leung denied Brinkman’s request for a modified briefing schedule, denied her expert-discovery motion without prejudice, and struck the September 29, 2021 hearing. Earlier consistent orders remained in effect.
The detailed version
- Brinkman v. Summit Fire Protection Co. · No. 0:19-cv-02981
- Tony Leung
- Sept. 10, 2021
Background
Kimberly Brinkman filed a motion to allow supplemental expert reports and modify the scheduling order to extend the expert-discovery deadline. She requested a briefing schedule consistent with District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1, pointing to the four-week gap between the motion-filing deadline and the September 29 hearing date.
Summit Fire Protection Co. and Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. opposed the requested schedule. They asked the court to strike the motion because it did not comply with the local rules or the scheduling order. They also argued that Brinkman had not met and conferred with them before requesting the modified schedule. The opinion does not state Sprinkler Fitters Local #417’s position on these requests.
Court’s Analysis
The pretrial scheduling order required all nondispositive motions related to expert discovery, along with supporting documents, to be filed and served by September 1, 2021. Local Rule 7.1 likewise required the moving party to file and serve the motion, notice of hearing, legal memorandum, supporting materials, meet-and-confer statement, and proposed order simultaneously at least 14 days before the hearing, unless an exception applied.
The court rejected Brinkman’s argument that the scheduling order and Local Rule 7.1 were inconsistent. It found that both required the motion and supporting documents to be filed together, and that Brinkman had failed to do so. The court also found no good cause to depart from the rule or the September 1 deadline. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court concluded that the four-week gap before the hearing did not show diligence in trying to meet the deadline.
Order
The court ordered that:
- Brinkman’s request for a modified briefing schedule was DENIED.
- Her motion to allow supplemental expert reports and modify the scheduling order to extend the expert-discovery deadline was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
- The September 29, 2021 hearing was STRICKEN.
- All prior consistent orders remained in effect.
The order also warned that violations of the order or earlier consistent orders could lead to remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney fees, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.