Wood v. Bailey-Harris Construction Company (LEAD)

Filing 39

ORDER directing as follows: (1) the 36 MOTION for Extension of Time is granted only to the extent that the deadline for response is extended to 5/25/2012, and the deadline for def to reply is extended to 6/1/2012; (2) if the depositions referre d to in the motion actually develop any new information that would be relevant in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, based on the two policy statements referred to and which could not have been anticipated and developed at the time of the original depositions, the court will consider a motion to supplement by the plaintiff if filed no later than 6/15/2012, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 5/18/12. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

OCIE WOOD, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BAILEY-HARRIS CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-136-WHA
)
(WO)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
This case is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension to Submit his Response
in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 36) and the Defendant’s
opposition thereto.
Upon consideration, the court hereby orders as follows:
1. The Motion is GRANTED only to the extent that the deadline for response is extended
to May 25, 2012, and the deadline for Defendant to reply is extended to June 1, 2012.
2. If the depositions referred to in the Motion actually develop any new information that
would be relevant in opposition to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, based on the
two policy statements referred to and which could not have been anticipated and developed at the
time of the original depositions, the court will consider a motion to supplement by the Plaintiff if
filed no later than June 15, 2012. Such motion must contain the specific evidence sought to be
added regarding the policy statements, explain why such evidence is relevant in opposition to the

Motion for Summary Judgment, and why it could not have been submitted by the original
deadline through the exercise of due diligence.

Done this 18th day of May, 2012.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2