Ronald E. Sexton v. Bankers Standard Insurance Company, D/B/A Chubb

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff Ronald E. Sexton’s motion to amend the scheduling order. The court extends certain discovery, mediation, and pretrial deadlines but leaves unchanged or denies requests concerning supplementation of initial disclosures, rebuttal experts, dispositive motions, and the trial setting.

Holdings

1. A change or withdrawal of counsel, without more, did not establish good cause to extend the scheduling-order deadlines in this case.
2. The request to extend the deadline for supplementing Rule 26 initial disclosures was denied because the deadline had expired and Plaintiff did not establish good cause for extending it.
3. The request to extend the January 22, 2026, rebuttal-expert deadline was denied.
4. The request to extend the dispositive-motion deadline was denied because doing so would affect the existing trial setting.
5. The motion was granted in part, and the court extended the deadlines for completing discovery, completing mediation, submitting the proposed pretrial order, and conducting the pretrial conference, while leaving the rebuttal-expert, dispositive-motion, and expert-admissibility deadlines unchanged.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff demonstrated good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to modify the scheduling order because of a change in counsel.
2. Whether the deadlines for supplementing initial disclosures, designating rebuttal experts, and filing potentially dispositive motions should be extended.
3. Which remaining discovery, mediation, pretrial, and related deadlines should be amended.

Disposition

other