Dunn et al v. Thomas et al

Filing 322

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.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his
official capacity as
Commissioner of
the Alabama Department of
Corrections, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv601-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
On

January

27,

2016,

following

the

parties’

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
certain

experts

for

the

plaintiffs

inspections in mid-March 2016.

to

conduct

site

The plaintiffs have

represented that these experts’ evidence will relate

only

to

the

second

phase

of

trial

in

this

case.

Moreover, the parties have represented that they will
not request the extension of any other deadline on the
basis

of

contingent

this
on

delay.
this

The

court’s

representation;

approval
any

was

extension

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
upon

with

discovery

extreme

disfavor.

disputes

remain,

To
the

the

extent

that

parties--who

are

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.

As the

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

2

agreement of the parties, will not be made absent the
most compelling of reasons.
v.

Chemaly,

280

F.3d

See Chrysler Int'l Corp.

1358,

1360

(11th

Cir.

2002)

(“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
orderly conclusion.”).
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.
do

not

now

extensions,

The parties have represented that they

anticipate
and

very seriously.

the

making

court

takes

further
this

motions

for

representation

Any request for an extension made on a

3

basis reasonably foreseeable as of this date will be
denied.
* * *
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
(doc.

no.

articulated

239),
on

is
the

extended
record

on

only

to

the

January

extent

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 January 27, 2016.
(2)

The

plaintiffs’

emergency

motion

to

compel

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