CURTIN v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ANDREW C. CURTIN, 	)
Individually and as Personal 	)
Representative of the Estate of 	)
CYNTHIA CARTWRIGHT, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:24-cv-00427-LEW
)
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., 	)
)
Defendant 	)
ORDER ON MOTION TO CONTINUE
This matter comes before me on a “Motion for Continuance” filed by the
Plaintiff, Andrew C. Curtin, on January 7, 2026. 	Motion (ECF No. 94). 	For the
reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
I. Discussion
On September 27, 2024, Curtin filed this action in Cumberland County
Superior Court. 	Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) at 25. 	After service of the complaint,
Defendants removed the case to this Court on December 11, 2024. Notice of Removal
(ECF No. 1). 	On August 15, 2025, I set a trial ready date of March 2, 2025. 	See
ECF No. 38. In mid-December 2025, the parties filed six motions concerning expert
testimony and exhibits. See ECF Nos. 73, 75, 78, 81-83. In early January 2026, the
Defendants filed two additional motions addressing Curtin’s 	December filings,
resulting in a total of eight pending motions to be resolved before trial. See ECF Nos.
90, 93. 	These filings are in addition to Defendants’ pending motion for partial
Case 2:24-cv-00427-LEW Document 99 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
summary judgment. See ECF No. 45. 	On January 7, 2026, Curtin filed the motion
to 	continue 	the 	trial 	date 	and 	pretrial 	conference 	now 	before 	the 	Court.
See ECF No. 94.
Trial management, “including [the] broad discretion to grant or withhold
continuances,” 	is 	“peculiarly 	within 	the 	ken 	of 	the 	district 	court.”
United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754, 770 (1st Cir. 1995); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 40.
When evaluating a motion to continue, “[a] reviewing court must look first at the
reasons contemporaneously presented in support of the request for the continuance.”
Id. Then it may look at other relevant factors, including
the amount of time needed for effective preparation, the amount of time
actually 	available 	for 	preparation, 	the 	amount 	of 	time 	previously
available for preparation and how assiduously the movant used that
time, the extent to which the movant has contributed to his perceived
predicament, the complexity of the case, the availability of assistance
from other sources, the probable utility of a continuance, the extent of
inconvenience to others (such as the court, the witnesses, and the
opposing party) should a continuance ensue, and the likelihood of
injustice or unfair prejudice attributable to the denial of a continuance.
Id.
After 	reviewing 	the 	parties’ 	filings, 	I 	am 	satisfied 	that 	Curtin 	has
demonstrated good cause for a continuance. 	Putting aside the scheduling issues
(which weigh in favor of a continuance) that Curtin’s counsel raised in their motion,
the nature of the claims requires that the parties have time to align their trial
preparation with the Court’s rulings on the pending motions. See Motion at 2-3.
Therefore, the appropriate schedule will allow the Court time to rule on the pending
motions and give the parties time to adjust their trial strategies based on those
Case 2:24-cv-00427-LEW Document 99 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
decisions. 	Furthermore, the case involves significant expert testimony that is the
subject 	of 	the 	December 	filings. 	See, 	e.g., 	ECF Nos. 	73, 	75, 	78, 	81-83. 	The
admissibility of such testimony directly affects both parties’ ability to coordinate with
their witnesses and prepare for trial. 	In addition to expert witness matters, Curtin
anticipates further motions in limine regarding non-expert testimony that the Court
will need to address in addition to the pending motions. 	Motion at 2. 	Considering
these circumstances, I conclude that a continuance is warranted.
II. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, I GRANT Curtin’s motion for a continuance and
ORDER that the case be placed on the May 2026 trial list.
NOTICE
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may
serve and file an objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to review by the District Court and to any further appeal of this order.
Dated: January 15, 2026
/s/ Karen Frink Wolf
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:24-cv-00427-LEW Document 99 Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>