The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the set down date for a complex product liability action and to place the proceeding and a related action into case management.
The defendants opposed the extension, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to comply with multiple court-ordered timetables and that the delay warranted dismissal due to prejudice, including the loss of documents and witnesses.
The court held that while the plaintiff’s prosecution of the action had been slow, its explanations for delay were plausible and it had taken ongoing steps to advance the litigation.
The court found that the evidence of prejudice was weak and largely speculative, and that the plaintiff had established a prima facie absence of actual prejudice to the defendants.
The set down date was extended, but the request to place the matter into case management was refused.
