Flint et al v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
Lorraine Flint et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Feit Electric Company, Inc.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:24-cv-00324
Judge Eli J. Richardson
Magistrate Judge Luke A. Evans
MEMORANDUM ORDER
There are two related motions currently pending in this case: a motion by defendant to
exclude plaintiffs’ expert witnesses (Doc. No. 26); and a motion by plaintiffs to dismiss the case
voluntarily and without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) (Doc. No. 30). Common to both motions is
the delay from plaintiffs in disclosing expert reports under Rule 26(a)(2). 	Defendants seek to
exclude plaintiffs’ experts because reports were not disclosed by the July 31, 2025 deadline (Doc.
No. 25). Plaintiffs seek to dismiss the case without prejudice “so that they may refile once expert
materials and records are complete.” (Doc. No. 30 at 2.)
Given Judge Richardson’s postponement of the trial, the pretrial conference, and all pretrial
motion filing deadlines (Doc. No. 33), the most prudent course of action is to deny both motions.1
1 	Judge Richardson referred this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (Doc. No. 6.) Section
636(b)(1)(A) limits magistrate judge jurisdiction for a list of eight motions including a motion for
involuntary dismissal of an action. 	Because plaintiffs’ motion is a Rule 41(a)(2) motion for
voluntary dismissal, and because denial will not change the current status of the parties, the Court
will adjudicate it by this order. Alternatively, following a few courts that appear to have proceeded
by report and recommendation in an abundance of caution when granting Rule 41(a)(2) motions,
see Fieselman v. Lewis, No. 14-CV-00030-RM-CBS, 2015 WL 170551, at *9 (D. Colo. Jan. 13,
2015); Lagroon v. Stone, No. 8:11-2531-TMC-JDA, 2012 WL 1389652, at *2 (D.S.C. Mar. 23,
2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. CA 8:11-2531-TMC, 2012 WL 1389644 (D.S.C.
Apr. 20, 2012); Woody v. City of Duluth, 176 F.R.D. 310, 315 (D. Minn. 1997), the Court would
recommend denial of plaintiffs’ motion.
Case 3:24-cv-00324 Document 34 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

2
The postponements of the trial and of the pretrial motion filing deadlines eliminate the chance that
further discovery would disrupt a trial. Compare Creekmur v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, No.
320CV00270BJBCHL, 2021 WL 1518643, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 16, 2021) (no substantial
prejudice to party opposing additional time for expert discovery in part because trial was not yet
scheduled) with Etheridge v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., No. 14-CV-2443-SHL-CGC, 2015
WL 12516227, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 14, 2015) (motion to exclude plaintiff’s proposed expert
witnesses granted in part because “discovery has long since closed and Defendant has filed a
dispositive motion”). 	The Court can set a schedule for outstanding expert discovery that
recognizes the need to move the case forward while minimizing the risk of prejudice to any party.
A new schedule for remaining discovery has the additional benefit of avoiding problems
that plaintiffs might face with limitations periods following a voluntary dismissal. For example,
to the extent that the claims in plaintiffs’ complaint concern injury to property, those claims might
be untimely should plaintiffs file a new complaint. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-105(1) (injuries
to personal or to real property to be filed within three years of accrual); Spence v. Miles Lab’ys,
Inc., 37 F.3d 1185, 1189 (6th Cir. 1994) (claims of manufacturing defects “fall squarely within the
confines of the Tennessee Products Liability Act [TPLA]”); accord Jones v. Davol, Inc., No. 3:18-
CV-00182, 2018 WL 4369978, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 12, 2018) (“The TPLA applies to any case
involving an allegedly defective or unreasonably dangerous product, irrespective of the underlying
substantive legal theory.”) (citing Spence).
Case 3:24-cv-00324 Document 34 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

3
Accordingly, the Court denies both pending motions. (Doc. Nos. 26, 30.) The Court will
enter a separate order scheduling a case management conference to set new deadlines for any
remaining discovery.
It is so ORDERED.
____________________________________
LUKE A. EVANS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-00324 Document 34 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>