Buford v. City Of Mobile et al

Filing 46

Order WITHDRAWING 33 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Sherman E. Otis; WITHDRAWING 34 MOTION to Dismiss filed by City Of Mobile. The plaintiff agreed to the WITHDRAWAL of Counts 5, 6, and 7 set forth in his first amended complaint and those counts are STRICKEN from the first amended complaint. The plaintiff agreed to the striking of the City of Mobile with respect to Counts 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16 of the first amended complaint. Finding as MOOT 35 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Lewis Bay Buford, Jr.; Amended Pleadings due by 8/12/2016. Discovery cutoff 7/29/2016. Motions due by 8/26/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady on 4/29/2016. copies to parties. (sdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LEWIS BAY BUFORD, JR.,
Plaintiff,

:
:

vs.

:

CITY OF MOBILE, et al.,

CA 15-0553-CB-C

:

Defendants.
ORDER
This cause came for a scheduling conference (see Doc. 41 (Rule 26(f) report)), and
for oral argument on various pending motions to dismiss (Docs. 33 & 34; see also Docs.
36-37, 39 & 42), on April 28, 2016. Once the undersigned established that all previous
motions to dismiss and other motions properly were mooted by previous order (see Doc.
43), the Court turned its attention to other matters. Initially, plaintiff’s counsel agreed
that in light the general rule that “fictitious-party pleading is not permitted in federal
court[,]” Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 738 (11th Cir. 2010), all references to the two
fictitious officers, designated as “Richard Doe” and “James Doe,” are to be STRICKEN
from the first amended complaint. Thereafter, following a relatively lengthy discussion
with the parties regarding what the undersigned saw as deficiencies in the parties’
various arguments in their pleadings, and how engagement in a brief discovery period
would aid the Court in resolving the issues presented with some finality, the defendants
stipulated to a WITHDRAWAL of the pending motions to dismiss and those motions

(Docs. 33 & 34) are WITHDRAWN.1 In turn, the plaintiff agreed to the wholesale
WITHDRAWAL of Counts 5, 6, and 7 set forth in his first amended complaint (see Doc.
27, at 20-24) and those counts are STRICKEN from the first amended complaint. In
addition, the plaintiff agreed to the striking of the City of Mobile with respect to Counts
8, 9, 10, 15 and 16 of the first amended complaint and the City is so STRICKEN with
respect to Counts 8, 9, 10, 15, and 16.2
Based upon the agreement of the parties, the following abbreviated scheduling
order is entered pursuant to Rule 16(b):
1.

DISCOVERY. Discovery is authorized in this case, as more specifically set

out infra, and is to be completed not later than July 29, 2016.3 As agreed during the
hearing, not more than 15 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts, 15 requests for
admission, and 15 requests for production may be served by each party upon any other
party not later than May 2, 2016;4 provided, however, it was agreed by and among counsel
for plaintiff and counsel for defendant City of Mobile that in lieu of taking the 30(b)(6)
deposition of the City, plaintiff may propound to the City 30 interrogatories, including
all discrete subparts. Responses to the foregoing written discovery are due within fifteen
(15) days of service. Once written discovery is complete, the following depositions are to
be noticed and taken as soon as practicable but certainly not later than July 29, 2016: (1)
1

The undersigned would simply note that plaintiff’s motion to exceed page
limitation (Doc. 35) is MOOT.
2

This means the City of Mobile remains as a defendant solely with respect to
Counts 1-4, 11-14, and 17 of the first amended complaint.
3

As the parties were informed during the conference, if they run into any problems
with this schedule they can seek additional time from the Court.
4

The pro se defendants, Leroy and Karen Raine, may, as well, serve written
discovery on plaintiff and the other defendants.

2

Lewis Bay Buford, Jr.; (2) Karen Raine; and (3) Officer Otis Sherman or if another officer
is identified through the course of written discovery and plaintiff believes that officer
will have more information than Officer Sherman, plaintiff may depose such other
officer.
2.

AMENDMENTS TO PLEADINGS AND JOINDER OF PARTIES. Motions

for leave to amend the pleadings or to join other parties must be filed not later than
August 12, 2016.5
3.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS. Motions for summary judgment are to be filed

not later than August 26, 2016. In submitting exhibits, the parties are reminded of Civil
Local Rule 5(a), which provides that only relevant portions of deposition transcripts or
other discovery materials shall be filed in support of or in opposition to a motion.
Evidentiary submissions that do not comport with these requirements may be
disregarded.
DONE and ORDERED this the 29th day of April, 2016.
WILLIAM E. CASSADY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

As explained during the hearing, if plaintiff seeks to reassert claims that he “gave
up” on April 28, 2016, he need explain why he seeks to reassert those claims.

3