Reyna v. Target Corporation

Background

This personal-injury case concerns Nancy Reyna’s December 18, 2018 slip-and-fall accident at Target Corporation’s store in White Plains, New York. The plaintiffs sought permission to identify Dr. Nitin Sekhri, a pain-management specialist, as an additional expert concerning Nancy Reyna’s planned surgery to insert a spinal stimulator to alleviate back pain.

The original discovery schedule required completion of discovery by July 30, 2021. After the complaint was amended to add another defendant, the court changed the schedule to require completion by March 30, 2022. The court later granted six extensions, including four involving expert discovery. An extension granted on June 24, 2022 set an August 19 deadline and stated that there would be no further extensions. The court nevertheless later extended the deadline to September 28, 2022 based on the availability of the parties’ experts.

The Request and the Court’s Analysis

At a September 28, 2022 conference, the plaintiffs’ counsel requested another extension to allow Dr. Sekhri to be designated as an expert. The plaintiffs had previously identified Dr. Peter Lementowski, the orthopedic surgeon who performed Nancy Reyna’s knee surgery, as their expert. The court said this was the first time the plaintiffs indicated that they wanted a second expert or expert testimony about Nancy Reyna’s back rather than her knee.

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 explained that good cause depends primarily on the moving party’s diligence—whether the deadline could not reasonably have been met despite diligent efforts.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown diligence. Dr. Lementowski’s April 6, 2022 report, served on May 2, 2022, described Nancy Reyna’s treatment by Dr. Sekhri and referred to possible nerve stimulation. Based on that information, the court found that Dr. Sekhri was not newly involved in the treatment and that spinal stimulation was not an unforeseeable development. The court concluded that plaintiffs’ counsel knew or should have known that Dr. Sekhri could be a potential witness.

The court also considered prejudice to Target. It found that discovery had focused on Nancy Reyna’s knee injury, while adding an expert in another field to address surgery involving another part of her body could require additional medical discovery, medical examinations, and responsive expert testimony. These steps would cause additional delay and expense.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison denied the plaintiffs’ request for leave to identify Dr. Sekhri as an additional expert. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to show good cause to reopen expert discovery. It directed the parties to proceed with motion practice under the schedule previously adopted by Judge Nelson Roman.