United States of America ex rel. June Raffington v. Bon Secours Health System
United States of America ex rel. June Raffington v. Bon Secours Health System, inc.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:10-cv-09650
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In United States ex rel. June Raffington v. Bon Secours, Judge Gorenstein granted limited COVID-19 discovery extensions instead of the requested twelve-week extension.
The ruling affected June Raffington’s expert-disclosure deadline and related case deadlines, as well as the defendants’ electronic-discovery database costs and any future requests for additional extensions.
What happened
In United States of America ex rel. June Raffington v. Bon Secours Health System, Inc. et al., June Raffington asked for twelve more weeks to disclose expert evidence because the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted two experts’ work. The defendants opposed the request.
The court found that the pandemic provided a valid reason for some extension, but the experts’ statements did not explain why four months were necessary. The defendants also reported more than $40,000 in database-management costs over the next four months.
Judge Gorenstein extended the expert-disclosure deadline by 60 days, to June 23, 2020, and extended two other deadlines by 60 days, to July 6 and July 8. The ruling did not prevent future extension requests.
The detailed version
- United States of America ex rel. June Raffington v. Bon Secours Health System · No. 1:10-cv-09650
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Apr. 13, 2020
Background
The relator, June Raffington, sought an extension of the deadline in the court’s December 11, 2019 order for disclosing expert evidence concerning liability. The disclosure was required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A), (B), or (C), and was due April 24, 2020. Raffington requested a twelve-week extension, until July 17, 2020. The defendants opposed the request.
Raffington supported the request with sworn declarations from two experts. Dr. Joel S. Bauman stated that COVID-19-related additional duties made it impossible for him to complete an expert report by April 24. Jessica Schmor, a medical coding expert, also described disruptions related to the pandemic. Neither expert stated how long the disruption would last. The defendants also reported that they would incur more than $40,000 in electronic-discovery database-management costs over the next four months.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that the pandemic-related disruptions provided good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 to extend the expert-disclosure deadline. But because the record did not establish how long the disruptions would continue or why a four-month extension was needed, the court declined to grant the requested twelve-week extension.
Ruling
The court extended Raffington’s deadline for submitting the Rule 26 disclosure by 60 days, to June 23, 2020. It also extended the May 5 and May 8 deadlines in the December 11 order by 60 days, to July 6 and July 8, respectively.
The ruling was without prejudice to a future application supporting an additional extension. It was also without prejudice to a future application by the defendants seeking to have Raffington bear the financial burden of maintaining the database during any additional period, even if good cause supported another extension. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.