Benson v. Samlip Alabama, LLC

Filing 32

ORDER directing that the Rule 26(f) report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable, as further set out in order; Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 12/3/2012; ORDERED that Plf's 30 Motion to Correct Document 29 and Sub stitute Motion to Postpone Discovery or Extend Response Time is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; It is GRANTED to the extent that this Court construes it as motion to strike Plf's 29 Motion for Extension of Time from the record as a filing error, but DENIED as MOOT to the extent that it requests an extension of time to respond to Dft's discovery requests; directing the Clerk to STRIKE Plf's 29 Motion for Extension of Time from the record, as it was filed in error. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 11/5/2012. (wcl, )

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

VONNETTA BENSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMLIP ALABAMA, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:12-cv-379-MEF
(WO – Do Not Publish)

ORDER

Plaintiff has recently filed two motions in this case. Now before the Court are
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. #29) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct
Document 29 and Substitute Motion to Postpone Discovery or Extend Response Time (Doc.
#30). In the latter motion (Doc. #30), Plaintiff makes two distinct requests. Plaintiff’s first
request is that Doc. #30 be substituted for Doc. #29, which this Court construes as a motion
to strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. #29) from the record as a filing error.
Plaintiff’s second request is for an extension of time to respond to Defendant’s discovery
requests.
Plaintiff’s second motion (Doc. #30) alerts the Court that the parties have failed to
comply with the requirements of Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as
directed by United States Magistrate Judge Wallace Capel, Jr.’s Order dated May 23, 2012.
(Doc. #11.) Rule 26(f) requires that the parties hold a conference to develop a joint proposed
discovery plan and submit to the Court a report outlining the joint discovery plan within

fourteen days of the parties’ conference. No such report has been filed with the Court as of
this date.1
The parties are hereby reminded of their obligation, imposed by Rule 26(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to confer and to develop a proposed discovery plan. The
Rule 26(f) report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable but not
later than December 3, 2012.
The longstanding practice in this district is that dispositive motions shall be filed no
later than 90 days prior to the pretrial date. If the parties seek to vary from that schedule,
they should present, in the plan, specific case related reasons for the requested variance. In
their Rule 26(f) report, however, the parties should assume that the 90-day requirement will
apply.
This case will be set for trial before the undersigned judge during one of that judge's
regularly scheduled civil trial terms. The pretrial date is normally set within four to six
weeks of a scheduled trial term. The dates of each judge's civil trial terms are available on
the court's website located at www.almd.uscourts.gov in the civil case information section.
This Court may or may not hold a scheduling conference before issuing a scheduling

1

The Court is aware that Defendant has filed a Proposed Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting
on June 13, 2012 (Doc. #14) (“Proposed Report”), in which Defendant proposed discovery deadlines
but alerted the Court that a Rule 26(f) planning conference had not been held in this case due to
Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s efforts to develop a joint discovery plan. However,
because no planning conference was held between the parties and the Proposed Report was
submitted solely on behalf of Defendant without any input or consent from Plaintiff, the Court finds
the Proposed Report is insufficient to accomplish the goals of Rule 26(f). Thus, no scheduling order
will be entered upon consideration of it.

-2-

order. If the court holds a scheduling conference, counsel may participate in the scheduling
conference by conference call.
The scheduling order entered by the Court will follow the form of the Uniform
Scheduling Order adopted by the judges of this court. The Uniform Scheduling Order is also
available on the court's website.
The report of the parties should comply with Form 52 of the Appendix of Forms to
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Given that no scheduling order has been issued by this Court, the discovery deadlines
in this case have yet to be set. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion
to Correct Document 29 and Substitute Motion to Postpone Discovery or Extend Response
Time (Doc. #30) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is GRANTED to the extent
that this Court construes it as motion to strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc.
#29) from the record as a filing error, but DENIED as MOOT to the extent that it requests
an extension of time to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests.
The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to STRIKE Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of
Time (Doc. #29) from the record, as it was filed in error.
DONE this the 5th day of November, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-