Preview
DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY,
COLORADO
1777 6th Street DATE FILED: June 26, 2023 3:36 PM
Boulder, Colorado 80306 FILING ID: F788B0D74995A
CASE NUMBER: 2021CV30929
ANOKI CREAGER, and LAURA CREAGER as
parent of and P.O.A. for ANOKI CREAGER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COURT USE ONLY
RAPID FIRE DELIVERY, LLC, BARBED WIRE ________________________________
GROUP, LLC, FLUID MARKET, INC. D/B/A
FLUID TRUCK SHARE, ONTRAC LOGISTICS,
INC., F/K/A EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS,
INC. D/B/A ONTRAC, and JONATHAN Case No.: 2021 CV 30929
RODRIGUEZ
Division: 5
Defendants.
s
FLUID MARKET, INC.
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
RAPID FIRE LLC AND CHRISTOPHER
RODRIGUEZ
Third-Party Defendant.
Attorneys for Fluid Market, Inc.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
Andrew K. Lavin, Esq., Atty. Reg. #44054
Andres M. Hermosillo, Esq., Atty. Reg. #45931
555 Seventeenth Street, Ste. 3400
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 534-5160
alavin@grsm.com; ahermosillo@grsm.com
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO SERVE EXPERT DISCLOSURES
AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING
All Defendants, through their counsel, pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1), seek an extension of the
expert disclosure deadline.1 Undersigned has approval to file on behalf of all Defendants.
Defendants requested a hearing to address this issue, but Plaintiffs’ counsel was not available on
the suggested date prior to the deadline. Consequently, Defendants’ request expedited briefing so
the Court can rule before July 3, 2023.
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL
Plaintiffs oppose the relief requested herein, in part. Plaintiffs have suggested they would
be agreeable to extending deadlines for supplements of certain experts if the Court permits Rule
35 examinations, but are not agreeable to extending deadlines if those are not approved.
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Creager is claiming life-altering injuries resulted from an October 13, 2021 motor
vehicle accident. See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions, p. 2 (summarizing his claim for
approximately $13 million in economic damages). He claims a traumatic brain injury and
orthopedic injuries have caused permanent impairment and disfigurement. Neither in disclosures
nor written discovery has Mr. Creager quantified his non-economic damages, but it is anticipated
he will seek significant non-economic damages.2 By Motion dated June 21, 2023, Plaintiffs are
attempting to seek exemplary damages against some Defendants. Defendants require additional
time for their experts to complete their evaluations to serve reports so they can adequately and
completely defend themselves in this litigation. They have engaged in reasonable efforts to
attempt to meet deadlines, but (1) the scope of experts and coordination, (2) missing records, (3)
1
The Court permitted Defendants to file a motion given the lack of availability for a hearing
before the deadline.
2
Mrs. Creager’s damages remain unknown. She has not set forth a separate claim and has never
disclosed damages.
2
late disclosed records and delay on depositions, (4) ongoing discovery disputes, and (5)
objections to Rule 35 examination establish good cause to extend Defendants’ expert disclosure
deadlines.
This has always been a case of catch-up for Defendants. Plaintiffs filed suit on December
11, 2021, less than two months after the accident and before Mr. Creager was discharged from
Craig Hospital. Per Mr. Creager’s deposition testimony and his expert disclosures, he continues
to seek medical care. The scope of that ongoing treatment is murky as he claims he is only
treating with one provider, but expert reports opine on significant future care.3 See Deposition of
Anoki Creager, 96:21-24, attached as Exhibit A. Defendants possess legitimate concerns they
are missing critical, contemporaneous medical information. Further, as explained below, ongoing
disputes over Rule 35 examinations, which are foundational for other experts, are prejudicing
their ability to generate expert reports.
At the case management stage, Defendants raised concerns with the expert disclosure
schedule. See July 16, 2022 Order Granting Case Management Order with Amendments
(ordering the parties to confer regarding the establishment of a more realistic expert disclosure
3
The following chart is from Dr. Hyzy’s expert report.
3
deadline schedule). It stated, “This deadline schedule should take into consideration potential
delays between Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ disclosures as well as the time between the parties’
initial disclosures and rebuttal disclosures.” At the October 18, 2022 status conference additional
concerns were raised but the default deadlines were set with the caveat that Defendants could
contact the Court if need arose to address the expert disclosure deadline. It is now clear
additional time is necessary for Defendants to serve expert disclosures. Good cause exists for an
extension of Defendants’ expert disclosure deadlines.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 6(b)(1) permits a party to move for an enlargement of time by showing cause
before the deadline has lapsed. See also C.R.C.P. 16 (requiring good cause to amend a case
management order). Good cause is a substantial reason amounting in law to a legal excuse for
failing to perform an act. See People v. Weeks, 2020 COA 44 ¶ 27; see also, e.g., Cook v.
Fernandez-Rocha, 168 P.3d 505 (Colo. 2007); Todd v. Bear Valley Village Apartments 980 P.2d
973 (Colo. 1999)
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff served expert disclosures on June 2 and 5, 2023. Plaintiff disclosed 7 retained
experts and 10 groups of non-retained experts, who are mostly medical providers. See Exhibit B.
A significant amount of the treating providers’ records have been disclosed in the last few
months as disclosures occurred in March, April, May and June 2023. See Exhibit C. The
retained experts concern a trucking and transportation expert, cell phone data experts, a physical
therapist opining on functional limitations, a life care plan expert, a vocational assessment
specialist, and an economist. Certain experts, for instance, the economist, relied on other expert’s
opinions, but despite the Court order that Plaintiffs’ complete expert files be disclosed within ten
4
days after the experts’ reports, the complete files have not been disclosed.4 Defendants likewise
require sequencing of experts.
ARGUMENT
Here, Defendants are prejudiced by having to rebut numerous experts within 28 days, as
was previewed at the case management stage. Moreover, certain litigation tactics necessitate an
extension of expert deadlines.
First, significant records have not been disclosed. Plaintiff has never disclosed records
from his primary care provider, Dr. Hinman. However, other providers, such as Colorado Pain
Specialists, have been corresponding with Dr. Hinman as part of the care. See Exhibit D.
Plaintiff admits treating with his primary care provider about injuries he claims are accident
related. See Ex. A, p. 105:8-106:20.5 These are fundamental records that must be disclosed and
available for Defendants’ experts to evaluate. Likewise, Mr. Creager testified that he has sought
chiropractic care, but no records have been disclosed. See Ex. A, p. 108:12-19. Ongoing
cognitive rehabilitation therapy is occurring with speech pathologist Ramya Shyam but no
records have been disclosed since March 2023 treatment. See Ex. A, p. 96:3-15. This is the
expert who is reportedly assisting Mr. Creager in independent living outside of his parents’
house and the only provider reportedly currently treating Mr. Creager. See id. Given the $5
million claim associated with nursing and attendant care, Ms. Shyam’s records are critical. It is
nearly impossible to opine on future care when current care records have not been disclosed.
This alone provides grounds for an extension on expert disclosures. It also appears that complete
4
Multiple conferrals have occurred regarding expert disclosures.
5
It should be noted that Plaintiff claims a significant brain injury, so it remains unknown how
accurate a historian he is about his treatment without review of the records. No insurance logs have
been disclosed to show all of his treatment dates.
5
records from Mr. Creager’s pre-accident concussion, which was subject to a separate lawsuit,
have not been disclosed. Likewise, no employment records have been disclosed even though Mr.
Creager is making a $4 million wage loss claim. On June 13, 2013, Plaintiffs promised a
supplement, but such has not issued. Rule 26(a)(1) and 34 required disclosure and production of
these records, so Defendants should not be penalized for Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with their
obligations.
In addition, Plaintiffs have delayed disclosing records. For instance, on May 31, 2023,
Plaintiffs’ served their fifth supplemental disclosures, which included a record from Independent
Functional Examiners. See Ex. C; see also Exhibit E. This record claims significant ongoing
physical impairments even though Plaintiff is currently able to skateboard. This is the basis for a
significant amount of claimed future treatment. The evaluation was on December 10, 2022 and
the report was authored January 20, 2023. However, it was not disclosed until six months later
on June 2023 with Plaintiff’s fifth supplemental disclosure. Upon learning of these claimed
ongoing impairments, Defendants sought their own Rule 35 examination, but their desired
provider, who had already reviewed records, is not available until August6 and Plaintiffs are
objecting to the examination even though his experts have had unfettered access to Mr. Creager.
This will be subject to a discovery hearing on July 6 but a complete report rebutting Plaintiff’s
December examination cannot be authored until the examination occurs. Notably, Plaintiff’s
physical limitations could be drastically different 7 months later as he is now able to skateboard
and do wheelies/”ollies”. See Ex. A. 138:2-21. Defendants should not be required to incur the
6
Defendants are pressing the provider for an earlier date, but this issue will not be heard by the
Court until July 6.
6
costs associated with piecemeal reports, which may also open them up to improper impeachment
if opinions change based on examinations.
As to the brain injury experts, Plaintiff was agreeable to additional neuropsychological
testing but selected the last available date of June 17, 2023. That testing has occurred, but is now
being evaluated and will need to be shared with other experts as it will be foundational to
opinions such as future care needs and the economics associated with such. In addition,
Plaintiffs object to a Rule 35 examination by a neuropsychiatrist, so that foundational expert’s
evaluation has not occurred. (Plaintiff has disclosed Dr. Hipskind who is a claimed neuroscientist
and board certified in family medicine and Dr. Gray, a neurologist, so it is reasonable for
Defendants to retain a doctor in addition to a psychologist to opine in this case especially
consider the future care claim associated with medication, which Plaintiff is not currently using.)
Plaintiffs’ objection to the examination and unavailability for a hearing before the deadline will
mean this examination cannot occur until after the current deadline. Again, this is a foundational
expert that other experts may rely upon.7
In addition, Defendants requested the deposition of Dr. Nupp, who was Mr. Creager’s
neuropsychologist at Craig Hospital and a disclosed expert. That deposition was requested on
April 12, 2023. Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated he desired to coordinate the deposition, which he did
after numerous additional requests. Seven weeks later, on May 30, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel
provided July 12 and July 14, both after the current expert disclosure deadline, for the deposition.
The deposition of Dr. Nupp, a health care provider who provided multiple tests and
neuropsychological treatment, will need to be reviewed by experts before they finalize their
7
Plaintiff did recently agree to a Rule 35 vocational evaluation to occur on June 28, 2023.
7
opinions. The request for it was nearly three months prior to the deadline, but not scheduled until
July.8
As to liability experts, Plaintiffs have disclosed three experts that address liability. One
expert, James Lewis, issued a 28-page report opining on numerous distinct topics including,
facility security, technology security and auditing, legal opinions regarding independent
contractor status, supervision of contractors, policies for contractors and background checks on
contractor employees. Additional time is necessary to respond to these wide ranging various
opinions. Furthermore, there are ongoing discovery motions practice that will influence the
scope of evidence that experts can rely upon. If Plaintiffs are successful, it is anticipated they
will amend expert disclosures and then Defendants will need to update disclosures. Party
resources would be saved by allowing the discovery motions to conclude before those costs are
expended.
In a case where Plaintiff will request $13 million in economic damages, non-economic
damages, disfigurement, impairment and potentially punitive damages, additional time is needed
to properly evaluate his claims. The above-stated reasons establish cause for an extension.
Unfortunately, until the Rule 35 examination issue is resolved and those examinations are
scheduled, Defendants cannot provide a precise recommended deadline.
CONCLUSION
Good cause has been shown for extension of expert disclosures. This case involves
significant expert opinion that requires coordination between experts. Although Defendants
commenced expert review before receiving Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures, they cannot meet the
8
Defendants have not had the opportunity to ask Dr. Nupp when he received the first request for
the deposition or what days he provided.
8
current deadlines given the variety of issues raised above. Good cause exists for an extension that
will be determined after the Rule 35 examination issue is addressed.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request an extension to serve expert disclosures and a
deadline be set once the Rule 35 examination issue is addressed by the Court.
Dated this 26th day of July, 2023.
GORDON REES WALTZ REEVES LAW
SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
/s/ Richard A. Waltz
/s/ Andrew K. Lavin Richard Allen Waltz, Esq.
Andrew K. Lavin, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Rapid Fire, LLC,
Andres M. Hermosillo, Esq. Rapid Fire LLC, and Christopher Rodriguez
Attorneys for Defendant Fluid Market Inc.
BREMER WHYTE BROWN & KISSINGER & FELLMAN, P.C.
O’MEARA, LLP
/s/ Jonathan M. Abramson
/s/ Douglas W. Baier Bobby G. Riley, Esq.
Devin S. Brunson, Esq. Jonathan M. Abramson, Esq.
Douglas W. Baier, Esq. Kissinger & Fellman, P.C.
-And- Attorneys for OnTrac Logistics, Inc.
Timothy R. Fiene, Esq.
Nathan Dumm & Mayer P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant Jonathan Rodriguez
STUART D. MORSE & ASSOCIATES,
LLC
/s/Stuart D. Morse
Stuart D. Morse, Esq.
Amber L. Brink, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant Rapid Fire, LLC,
Rapid Fire LLC, and Christopher Rodriguez
9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the above and foregoing
DEFENDNATS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO SERVE EXPERT DISCLOSURES
AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING was filed and served via the CO-Courts
electronic filing system this 26th day of June, 2023, which will serve the following.
All counsel of record
/s/ Monica L. Vela
10
Preview
DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO 1777 6th Street DATE FILED: June 26, 2023 3:36 PM Boulder, Colorado 80306 FILING ID: F788B0D74995A CASE NUMBER: 2021CV30929 ANOKI CREAGER, and LAURA CREAGER as parent of and P.O.A. for ANOKI CREAGER, Plaintiffs, v. COURT USE ONLY RAPID FIRE DELIVERY, LLC, BARBED WIRE ________________________________ GROUP, LLC, FLUID MARKET, INC. D/B/A FLUID TRUCK SHARE, ONTRAC LOGISTICS, INC., F/K/A EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC. D/B/A ONTRAC, and JONATHAN Case No.: 2021 CV 30929 RODRIGUEZ Division: 5 Defendants. s FLUID MARKET, INC. Third-Party Plaintiff, v. RAPID FIRE LLC AND CHRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ Third-Party Defendant. Attorneys for Fluid Market, Inc. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP Andrew K. Lavin, Esq., Atty. Reg. #44054 Andres M. Hermosillo, Esq., Atty. Reg. #45931 555 Seventeenth Street, Ste. 3400 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 534-5160 alavin@grsm.com; ahermosillo@grsm.com DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO SERVE EXPERT DISCLOSURES AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING All Defendants, through their counsel, pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1), seek an extension of the expert disclosure deadline.1 Undersigned has approval to file on behalf of all Defendants. Defendants requested a hearing to address this issue, but Plaintiffs’ counsel was not available on the suggested date prior to the deadline. Consequently, Defendants’ request expedited briefing so the Court can rule before July 3, 2023. CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL Plaintiffs oppose the relief requested herein, in part. Plaintiffs have suggested they would be agreeable to extending deadlines for supplements of certain experts if the Court permits Rule 35 examinations, but are not agreeable to extending deadlines if those are not approved. INTRODUCTION Mr. Creager is claiming life-altering injuries resulted from an October 13, 2021 motor vehicle accident. See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions, p. 2 (summarizing his claim for approximately $13 million in economic damages). He claims a traumatic brain injury and orthopedic injuries have caused permanent impairment and disfigurement. Neither in disclosures nor written discovery has Mr. Creager quantified his non-economic damages, but it is anticipated he will seek significant non-economic damages.2 By Motion dated June 21, 2023, Plaintiffs are attempting to seek exemplary damages against some Defendants. Defendants require additional time for their experts to complete their evaluations to serve reports so they can adequately and completely defend themselves in this litigation. They have engaged in reasonable efforts to attempt to meet deadlines, but (1) the scope of experts and coordination, (2) missing records, (3) 1 The Court permitted Defendants to file a motion given the lack of availability for a hearing before the deadline. 2 Mrs. Creager’s damages remain unknown. She has not set forth a separate claim and has never disclosed damages. 2 late disclosed records and delay on depositions, (4) ongoing discovery disputes, and (5) objections to Rule 35 examination establish good cause to extend Defendants’ expert disclosure deadlines. This has always been a case of catch-up for Defendants. Plaintiffs filed suit on December 11, 2021, less than two months after the accident and before Mr. Creager was discharged from Craig Hospital. Per Mr. Creager’s deposition testimony and his expert disclosures, he continues to seek medical care. The scope of that ongoing treatment is murky as he claims he is only treating with one provider, but expert reports opine on significant future care.3 See Deposition of Anoki Creager, 96:21-24, attached as Exhibit A. Defendants possess legitimate concerns they are missing critical, contemporaneous medical information. Further, as explained below, ongoing disputes over Rule 35 examinations, which are foundational for other experts, are prejudicing their ability to generate expert reports. At the case management stage, Defendants raised concerns with the expert disclosure schedule. See July 16, 2022 Order Granting Case Management Order with Amendments (ordering the parties to confer regarding the establishment of a more realistic expert disclosure 3 The following chart is from Dr. Hyzy’s expert report. 3 deadline schedule). It stated, “This deadline schedule should take into consideration potential delays between Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ disclosures as well as the time between the parties’ initial disclosures and rebuttal disclosures.” At the October 18, 2022 status conference additional concerns were raised but the default deadlines were set with the caveat that Defendants could contact the Court if need arose to address the expert disclosure deadline. It is now clear additional time is necessary for Defendants to serve expert disclosures. Good cause exists for an extension of Defendants’ expert disclosure deadlines. LEGAL STANDARD Rule 6(b)(1) permits a party to move for an enlargement of time by showing cause before the deadline has lapsed. See also C.R.C.P. 16 (requiring good cause to amend a case management order). Good cause is a substantial reason amounting in law to a legal excuse for failing to perform an act. See People v. Weeks, 2020 COA 44 ¶ 27; see also, e.g., Cook v. Fernandez-Rocha, 168 P.3d 505 (Colo. 2007); Todd v. Bear Valley Village Apartments 980 P.2d 973 (Colo. 1999) PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff served expert disclosures on June 2 and 5, 2023. Plaintiff disclosed 7 retained experts and 10 groups of non-retained experts, who are mostly medical providers. See Exhibit B. A significant amount of the treating providers’ records have been disclosed in the last few months as disclosures occurred in March, April, May and June 2023. See Exhibit C. The retained experts concern a trucking and transportation expert, cell phone data experts, a physical therapist opining on functional limitations, a life care plan expert, a vocational assessment specialist, and an economist. Certain experts, for instance, the economist, relied on other expert’s opinions, but despite the Court order that Plaintiffs’ complete expert files be disclosed within ten 4 days after the experts’ reports, the complete files have not been disclosed.4 Defendants likewise require sequencing of experts. ARGUMENT Here, Defendants are prejudiced by having to rebut numerous experts within 28 days, as was previewed at the case management stage. Moreover, certain litigation tactics necessitate an extension of expert deadlines. First, significant records have not been disclosed. Plaintiff has never disclosed records from his primary care provider, Dr. Hinman. However, other providers, such as Colorado Pain Specialists, have been corresponding with Dr. Hinman as part of the care. See Exhibit D. Plaintiff admits treating with his primary care provider about injuries he claims are accident related. See Ex. A, p. 105:8-106:20.5 These are fundamental records that must be disclosed and available for Defendants’ experts to evaluate. Likewise, Mr. Creager testified that he has sought chiropractic care, but no records have been disclosed. See Ex. A, p. 108:12-19. Ongoing cognitive rehabilitation therapy is occurring with speech pathologist Ramya Shyam but no records have been disclosed since March 2023 treatment. See Ex. A, p. 96:3-15. This is the expert who is reportedly assisting Mr. Creager in independent living outside of his parents’ house and the only provider reportedly currently treating Mr. Creager. See id. Given the $5 million claim associated with nursing and attendant care, Ms. Shyam’s records are critical. It is nearly impossible to opine on future care when current care records have not been disclosed. This alone provides grounds for an extension on expert disclosures. It also appears that complete 4 Multiple conferrals have occurred regarding expert disclosures. 5 It should be noted that Plaintiff claims a significant brain injury, so it remains unknown how accurate a historian he is about his treatment without review of the records. No insurance logs have been disclosed to show all of his treatment dates. 5 records from Mr. Creager’s pre-accident concussion, which was subject to a separate lawsuit, have not been disclosed. Likewise, no employment records have been disclosed even though Mr. Creager is making a $4 million wage loss claim. On June 13, 2013, Plaintiffs promised a supplement, but such has not issued. Rule 26(a)(1) and 34 required disclosure and production of these records, so Defendants should not be penalized for Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with their obligations. In addition, Plaintiffs have delayed disclosing records. For instance, on May 31, 2023, Plaintiffs’ served their fifth supplemental disclosures, which included a record from Independent Functional Examiners. See Ex. C; see also Exhibit E. This record claims significant ongoing physical impairments even though Plaintiff is currently able to skateboard. This is the basis for a significant amount of claimed future treatment. The evaluation was on December 10, 2022 and the report was authored January 20, 2023. However, it was not disclosed until six months later on June 2023 with Plaintiff’s fifth supplemental disclosure. Upon learning of these claimed ongoing impairments, Defendants sought their own Rule 35 examination, but their desired provider, who had already reviewed records, is not available until August6 and Plaintiffs are objecting to the examination even though his experts have had unfettered access to Mr. Creager. This will be subject to a discovery hearing on July 6 but a complete report rebutting Plaintiff’s December examination cannot be authored until the examination occurs. Notably, Plaintiff’s physical limitations could be drastically different 7 months later as he is now able to skateboard and do wheelies/”ollies”. See Ex. A. 138:2-21. Defendants should not be required to incur the 6 Defendants are pressing the provider for an earlier date, but this issue will not be heard by the Court until July 6. 6 costs associated with piecemeal reports, which may also open them up to improper impeachment if opinions change based on examinations. As to the brain injury experts, Plaintiff was agreeable to additional neuropsychological testing but selected the last available date of June 17, 2023. That testing has occurred, but is now being evaluated and will need to be shared with other experts as it will be foundational to opinions such as future care needs and the economics associated with such. In addition, Plaintiffs object to a Rule 35 examination by a neuropsychiatrist, so that foundational expert’s evaluation has not occurred. (Plaintiff has disclosed Dr. Hipskind who is a claimed neuroscientist and board certified in family medicine and Dr. Gray, a neurologist, so it is reasonable for Defendants to retain a doctor in addition to a psychologist to opine in this case especially consider the future care claim associated with medication, which Plaintiff is not currently using.) Plaintiffs’ objection to the examination and unavailability for a hearing before the deadline will mean this examination cannot occur until after the current deadline. Again, this is a foundational expert that other experts may rely upon.7 In addition, Defendants requested the deposition of Dr. Nupp, who was Mr. Creager’s neuropsychologist at Craig Hospital and a disclosed expert. That deposition was requested on April 12, 2023. Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated he desired to coordinate the deposition, which he did after numerous additional requests. Seven weeks later, on May 30, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel provided July 12 and July 14, both after the current expert disclosure deadline, for the deposition. The deposition of Dr. Nupp, a health care provider who provided multiple tests and neuropsychological treatment, will need to be reviewed by experts before they finalize their 7 Plaintiff did recently agree to a Rule 35 vocational evaluation to occur on June 28, 2023. 7 opinions. The request for it was nearly three months prior to the deadline, but not scheduled until July.8 As to liability experts, Plaintiffs have disclosed three experts that address liability. One expert, James Lewis, issued a 28-page report opining on numerous distinct topics including, facility security, technology security and auditing, legal opinions regarding independent contractor status, supervision of contractors, policies for contractors and background checks on contractor employees. Additional time is necessary to respond to these wide ranging various opinions. Furthermore, there are ongoing discovery motions practice that will influence the scope of evidence that experts can rely upon. If Plaintiffs are successful, it is anticipated they will amend expert disclosures and then Defendants will need to update disclosures. Party resources would be saved by allowing the discovery motions to conclude before those costs are expended. In a case where Plaintiff will request $13 million in economic damages, non-economic damages, disfigurement, impairment and potentially punitive damages, additional time is needed to properly evaluate his claims. The above-stated reasons establish cause for an extension. Unfortunately, until the Rule 35 examination issue is resolved and those examinations are scheduled, Defendants cannot provide a precise recommended deadline. CONCLUSION Good cause has been shown for extension of expert disclosures. This case involves significant expert opinion that requires coordination between experts. Although Defendants commenced expert review before receiving Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures, they cannot meet the 8 Defendants have not had the opportunity to ask Dr. Nupp when he received the first request for the deposition or what days he provided. 8 current deadlines given the variety of issues raised above. Good cause exists for an extension that will be determined after the Rule 35 examination issue is addressed. WHEREFORE, Defendants request an extension to serve expert disclosures and a deadline be set once the Rule 35 examination issue is addressed by the Court. Dated this 26th day of July, 2023. GORDON REES WALTZ REEVES LAW SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP /s/ Richard A. Waltz /s/ Andrew K. Lavin Richard Allen Waltz, Esq. Andrew K. Lavin, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Rapid Fire, LLC, Andres M. Hermosillo, Esq. Rapid Fire LLC, and Christopher Rodriguez Attorneys for Defendant Fluid Market Inc. BREMER WHYTE BROWN & KISSINGER & FELLMAN, P.C. O’MEARA, LLP /s/ Jonathan M. Abramson /s/ Douglas W. Baier Bobby G. Riley, Esq. Devin S. Brunson, Esq. Jonathan M. Abramson, Esq. Douglas W. Baier, Esq. Kissinger & Fellman, P.C. -And- Attorneys for OnTrac Logistics, Inc. Timothy R. Fiene, Esq. Nathan Dumm & Mayer P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Jonathan Rodriguez STUART D. MORSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC /s/Stuart D. Morse Stuart D. Morse, Esq. Amber L. Brink, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Rapid Fire, LLC, Rapid Fire LLC, and Christopher Rodriguez 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the above and foregoing DEFENDNATS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO SERVE EXPERT DISCLOSURES AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING was filed and served via the CO-Courts electronic filing system this 26th day of June, 2023, which will serve the following. All counsel of record /s/ Monica L. Vela 10