Jones v. Ward et al
ORDER that Plaintiff's 79 Objection is OVERRULED as further set out in the order. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 7/1/2011. (dmn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
FRED HAMIC, et al.,
Case No. 1:10-cv-202-MEF
This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Objections to the Court’s Uniform
Scheduling Order. (Doc. # 79). The Court recognizes that in the Report of Parties’ Rule
26 Planning Meeting (“the report”), the parties could not agree on a date for the close of
discovery. Such a dispute regarding deadlines is one ordinarily resolved by the district
court, and not referred to the magistrate. In the parties’ report, the Plaintiff proposed that
discovery be completed 30 days after the dispositive motion deadline. (Doc. # 72). The
Defendants proposed that discovery be completed 30 days prior to the dispositive motion
deadline. Id. In selecting a deadline for the close of discovery, the Court split the
difference and ordered that the close of discovery will coincide with the dispositive
motion deadline. The Court views this as a fair resolution of the parties’ dispute, and
accordingly, the Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED.
Done this the 1st day of July, 2011.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?