Standards for Missed Scheduling Order Deadlines
In Parker v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 2009 WI App 42, the District 4 Court of Appeals addressed the standards governing trial court scheduling order decisions. The issue arose when the plaintiff argued that the key defense expert should have been barred from testifying because the defense failed to name the expert by the date.
For those worried about timely performance under scheduling orders, the most important discussion in the opinion is:
Consistent with Schneller II, we conclude that the excusable neglect standard set forth in Wis. Stat § 801.15(2)(a) does not apply to untimely motions to enlarge scheduling order deadlines. Rather, Wis. Stat. § 802.10 provides the “standards and procedures” courts apply to such motions. Moreover, requiring courts to evaluate untimely motions under the excusable neglect standard would infringe upon the circuit court’s broad discretion in addressing untimely motions to amend scheduling orders. See Teff, 265 Wis. 2d 703, ¶29; see also City of Sun Prairie v Davis, 226 Wis. 2d 738, 749-50, 595 N.W.2d 635 (1999) (courts have inherent authority to take actions that ensure their efficient and effective function). As the supreme court explained in Schneller II, 162 Wis. 2d at 310, such discretion “permits the court to take steps ranging from granting the requested relief to dismissing the moving party’s case, [and] is absolutely essential to the court’s ability to efficiently and effectively administer its calendar.”
This comes as relatively good news to those who hope to convince a court that missing a scheduling order deadline shouldn’t interfere with the presentation of the case on the merits. In that the decision is now committed even more firmly to the court’s discretion, knowledge of the judge is imperative.
