Hahn v. Amgen, Inc.

Full title: RANDA HAHN v. AMGEN, INC., ET AL

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas

Date published: Apr 16, 2004

ACTION NO. 4:03-CV-855-Y (N.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2004)

Opinion

ACTION NO. 4:03-CV-855-Y

April 16, 2004

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND AND GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TERRY MEANS, District Judge

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Deadline for Designating Physicians and Medical Experts, which was filed in this cause on March 12, 2004. Defendants filed a response in opposition to the motion on March 15. As of the date of this order, there has been no reply to Defendants' response.¹ Also pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, which was filed in this cause on March 15. As of the date of this order, there has been no response in opposition to the motion.² After review of the foregoing documents, the record in this cause, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Motion to Extend should be denied, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted. Plaintiff has wholly failed to demonstrate good cause for the requested extension of the March 12 deadline to produce expert causation evidence.³ See FED. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence in response to Defendants' summary-judgment motion creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the causation issue.

1 Local civil rule 7.1(f) requires that a reply to a response be filed "within 15 days from the date the response is filed."

2 Local civil rule 7.1(e) requires that a response to a motion "be filed within 20 days from the date the motion is filed."

3 Plaintiff's motion indicates that she has "identified potential experts" but needs additional time "to forward the necessary documents and medical records to such potential experts . . ., and the potential experts need additional time to review and consider such documents." (Pl.'s Mot. to Extend at 1.) Plaintiff wholly fails to explain, however, why these matters could not be completed, with the exercise of due diligence, during the almost three-month period previously allowed by the Court.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Deadline for Designating Physicians and Medical Experts [document number 16] is hereby DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [document number 18] is hereby GRANTED.