A federal district court denied defense attorneys’ attempts to reschedule a trial to accommodate a scheduling conflict. Although the decision will result in the defendants using different counsel, the court decided that rescheduling would interfere with the court’s management of its cases. The court further concluded that the trial proceeding as scheduled would not prejudice the defendants. Unsurprised by this ruling, ABA Litigation Section leaders advise practitioners to avoid this result by raising and managing scheduling conflicts promptly.
The plaintiffs in Katz v. Panera Bread Co. sued the defendants, alleging its caffeinated lemonade led to the death of a Philadelphia woman in 2022. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania initially scheduled the trial for a date that defense counsel knew conflicted with another trial of theirs. But defense counsel did not notify the plaintiffs’ counsel until six months later. The plaintiffs’ counsel refused to consent to a trial continuance, citing the delay in disclosing the conflict and the plaintiff's’ counsel’s own trial schedule in the fall.
Defense counsel sought court intervention. They requested a continuance in a motion to amend the scheduling order, which the court denied. Counsel requested a continuance again in a telephone conference, but the court informed counsel that they waited too long to disclose the conflict. The court recommended that other attorneys at defense counsels’ firm prepare to try the case. For a third time, defense counsel raised the scheduling conflict in a brief conference in the judge’s chambers following oral argument of an unrelated motion. The court asked both parties’ counsel to provide availability and then rescheduled the trial.
Four days after the court granted the continuance, defense counsel notified the court that the new date would not work because they had just learned their conflicting trial was expected to last longer than they previously estimated. The court treated the notice as a motion to amend the scheduling order and denied a second continuance. When defense counsel moved for reconsideration, the court denied the request, affirming that the trial would proceed as scheduled.
In its order denying the motion for reconsideration, the court concluded that the trial proceeding as scheduled would not cause prejudice or deprive the defendants of “capable trial counsel.” On the other hand, rescheduling would interfere with the orderly administration of the case and other cases on the docket. Relying on its authority in matters of scheduling and docket control, the court explained that modifying the scheduling order is only appropriate with the judge’s consent and when there is good cause. And it noted that courts have repeatedly found that counsel’s busy trial schedule does not establish good cause.
The district court noted that a civil litigant’s choice of counsel is not an absolute right and may be restricted when “used to delay and adversely affect other cases.” And it described the ripple effect on various other trials on the docket that would be delayed as a result. The court said that moving the trial would cause congestion in the court’s docket, resulting in delays and inconvenience to the litigants, witnesses, and attorneys in both the case at hand and other trials scheduled. As a result, the court’s administration of its own docket took priority over the party’s choice of counsel.
The court reasoned that the decision did not prejudice the defendants, given the depth at defense counsel’s firm. “In light of its size and self-proclaimed experience in product liability law, including in Pennsylvania, we are satisfied that [the firm] has attorneys who are qualified, knowledgeable and experienced enough to try this case.” Additionally, the court reminded counsel that they could have anticipated this situation as the court had previously told counsel that other attorneys at their firm should be prepared to try the case as scheduled.
The court also rejected defense counsel’s argument that the plaintiffs’ counsel’s upcoming trial dates were unlikely to go forward and had already been rescheduled several times. Specifically, the court pointed to defense counsel’s “whimsical treatment” of trial dates as the reason for why the parties were in their current position.
This case is a reminder that “federal district court judges have perhaps the most leeway and power in setting their calendars, and attorneys should always be cognizant of the court’s power,” cautions John S. Austin, Raleigh, NC, Co-Chair of the Litigation Section’s Ethics & Professionalism Committee. He notes that this case is a warning to parties and counsel to “never assume a case can be or will be continued in federal court.”
The case is also a “reminder that raising and managing scheduling conflicts promptly with opposing counsel and the court is part of good preparation in representing clients,” adds Zesara C. Chan, San Francisco, CA, Co-Director of Division VI and former Council Member of the Section. This allows the parties to “resolve conflicts or other issues early and efficiently, or can allow more time and flexibility to explore and prepare other options as may be needed in the event issues cannot be resolved,” she concludes.
