Dunn et al v. Thomas et al
OPINION AND ORDER as follows: (1) The deadline for fact discovery of 3/7/2016, as set out in the courts new scheduling order (doc. no. 239 ), is extended only to the extent articulated on the record on 1/27/2016; specifically, plaintiffs experts may conduct the site inspections enumerated on the dates indicated by plaintiffs counsel and agreed to by defense counsel. This order shall not be construed to grant any extension other than those explicitly articulated on the record on 1/27/2016. (2) The plaintiffs emergency motion to compel compliance with the discovery schedule (doc. no. 317 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/28/2016. (dmn, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
JOSHUA DUNN, et al.,
JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his
official capacity as
the Alabama Department of
Corrections, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
OPINION AND ORDER
mediation before the magistrate judge, the court held a
hearing on the plaintiffs’ emergency motion to compel
compliance with the discovery schedule (doc. no. 317).
With reluctance, the court approved a limited extension
to the fact discovery deadline of March 7, 2016, see
New Scheduling Order (doc. no. 239), in order to permit
inspections in mid-March 2016.
The plaintiffs have
represented that these experts’ evidence will relate
Moreover, the parties have represented that they will
not request the extension of any other deadline on the
request made on the basis of the delay in inspections
will be denied.
As the court explained at that hearing, any further
request for an extension of any sort will be looked
represented by a veritable phalanx of capable lawyers
on both sides--must resolve them in a way that does not
delay the progress of litigation in this case.
court also emphasized, it has devoted and will continue
to devote considerable time, resources, and personnel
to this case.
Three full months out of the coming year
have been set aside for trial.
Changes to the schedule
currently in place, which was initially set with the
agreement of the parties, will not be made absent the
most compelling of reasons.
See Chrysler Int'l Corp.
(“Given the caseload of most district courts and the
fact that cases can sometimes stretch out over years,
district courts must have discretion and authority to
ensure that their cases move to a reasonably timely and
To be crystal clear: Any motion to continue any
deadline in this case which could reasonably have been
avoided by the good faith efforts and diligence of the
parties, and which therefore evinces disregard for the
court and reflects dilatory conduct not commensurate
with the gravity with which the court views this case,
will be denied.
The parties have represented that they
Any request for an extension made on a
basis reasonably foreseeable as of this date will be
* * *
It is therefore ORDERED as follows:
(1) The deadline for fact discovery of March 7,
2016, as set out in the court’s new scheduling order
specifically, plaintiffs’ experts may conduct the site
plaintiffs’ counsel and agreed to by defense counsel.
extension other than those explicitly articulated on
the record on January 27, 2016.
compliance with the discovery schedule (doc. no. 317)
is denied as moot.
DONE, this the 28th day of January, 2016.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson____
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?