Heard v. Town of Camp Hill et al

Filing 56

ORDER: It is ORDERED that the Plaintiff's 52 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Court's 51 Order is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as further set out in the order. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion (Doc. 52 ) is GRANTED to the extent it seeks to extend Plaintiffs deadline for supplementing his medical expert disclosures consistent with the Courts Order of 8/23/2017 to 9/8/2017. To the extent it seeks other relief, Plaintiffs motion (Doc. 52 ) is DENIED in all other respects. Due to the extension of Plaintiffs medical expert disclosure deadline, it is further ORDERED that the Uniform Scheduling Order (Doc. 25 ), as amended (Doc. 44 ), ismodified as follows: 1. The defendants shall provide expert witness disclosures in accordance with Section 8 of the Uniform Scheduling Order on or before 10/6/2017; 2. All discovery shall be completed on or before 11/6/2017; 3. All dispositve motions shall be filed on or before 12/6/2017. Signed by Honorable Judge Gray M. Borden on 8/29/2017. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
DOUGLAS R. HEARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF CAMP HILL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-00856-WKW-GMB
[WO]

ORDER
Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
Court’s Order, Document 51 (Doc. 52). For the reasons set forth below, it is ORDERED
that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The court’s Order of August 23, 2017 (Doc. 51) found that Plaintiff’s expert
disclosures were materially deficient, but granted him until August 30, 2017 to (1)
supplement all of his expert witness disclosures in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(2)(C); (2) supplement his medical expert witness disclosures in
compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), or serve on the defendants
affidavits setting forth sufficient information to determine whether the medical experts
qualify as those from whom formal written reports are required; and (3) show cause as to
why Jeffrey R. Fraser should not be excluded from testifying under Rule 37(c)(1) for
Plaintiff’s noncompliance with the Uniform Scheduling Order.

Plaintiff has responded

to the show-cause portion of the Order (Doc. 53) and has not specifically requested an
1

extension of the deadline for supplementing his non-medical experts’ disclosures or
justified such an extension, but begs to be allowed until September 8, 2017 to submit
affidavits or supplemental disclosures from his medical experts. See Doc. 52.

The court

concludes that the extension requested by Plaintiff is reasonable in light of his medical
experts’ unavailability as described in the motion, and that the extension will not
prejudice the defendants if their corresponding disclosure deadline is extended. Doc. 52
at 2–3.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 52) is GRANTED to the
extent it seeks to extend Plaintiff’s deadline for supplementing his medical expert
disclosures consistent with the Court’s Order of August 23, 2017 to September 8, 2017.
To the extent it seeks other relief, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 52) is DENIED in all other
respects.
Due to the extension of Plaintiff’s medical expert disclosure deadline, it is further
ORDERED that the Uniform Scheduling Order (Doc. 25), as amended (Doc. 44), is
modified as follows:
1.
2.
3.

The defendants shall provide expert witness disclosures in accordance
with Section 8 of the Uniform Scheduling Order on or before
October 6, 2017;
All discovery shall be completed on or before November 6, 2017;
and
All dispositive motions shall be filed on or before December 6, 2017.

Plaintiff and his counsel are cautioned that the court will not entertain any
additional request to extend these or other deadlines absent a showing of exceptional
cause.

Where, as here, the underlying circumstances justifying the extension have been
2

created by Plaintiff’s counsel, any request will be denied summarily.
DONE on the 29th day of August, 2017.

3